The story should be about how the will of the elected representatives of the
people was just openly influenced and changed by a powerful, monied lobby. We
should be screaming mad about how our society is taken hostage by big
pharma/tobacco/guns/industry/banking or whatever.
People may complain about lobbying groups (like the NRA for example), however
the truth is that these groups exist because people support them. Congress pays
heed to what they say because many times they represent a large part of their
constituency, and so since they want to get re-elected, they try to keep that
constituency appeased.I am a part of that constituency, and I
support gun rights, the second amendment, and the NRA. If congress, the
president, or anyone else thinks that I and the others like me are going to lie
down and cower in submission when they threaten to unconstitutionally take away
our rights, the which have been bought with blood, they are sadly mistaken.
I guess we will find out soon if Congress is owned by the People or by special
interests like the NRA.
It'll be compromised away. Look for the high capacity clip limit and
requiring background checks on all gun purchases to be the main final target of
@Cool Cat: Some rights are worth being taken away. Those such as yelling
"fire" in a crowded theater, etc. Those such as insinuating one has a
bomb and intends to blow up a plane. And, yes, those that take away our rights
to AK-47s, which have absolutely no purpose for public use!
Innocent people are not protected by disarming innocent people.I
should not have to give up my right to have the weapons suitablefor home
defense and for the militia because others misbehave.The governments
militia i.e. police and national guard can notalways be counted on to be
there for you.Like it or not, the second ammendment is still part of
Of all groups Mormons ought to understand what happens when you surrender your
weapons.The Nauvoo Legion was disarmed and they lost the Prophet and their
city.The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting.The more
our politicians want us identified and disarmed, the louder we must protest.Just like the right to assemble and the right to speak out, the right to bear
arms is an anti-tyranny measure.I hope we never have to use it, but we
must be able to do so if required.
Do we have a president or a king?
@cjbThe second amendment does not allow for a lack of regulation just a
lack of a total gun ban like those that some cities had.
xscribe,You don't like the rights of the people, or the NRA?
Then I suggest packing your bags.
Did I miss something, who is trying to take away anyone's right to bear
arms? The extremely conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia has even said
that the second amendment is not absolute. The overstating of this proposed
legislation would be somewhat comical if this wasn't such a serious matter.
This is not 1776, the framers had no way to see what kinds of weapons the
average person would be able to obtain in 2013. That's why they left the
language strong enough that the right to bear arms couldn't be taken away,
but flexible enough it could interpreted to meet the current needs of American
If any bill is to be passed by Congress, I ask that a provision beinserted into the bill allowing hunters and target shooters andother gun
users use silencers.Every time a gun is shot without hearing
protection, theshooter and those around him or her suffer hearing loss.
@Fred44It all depends on what mean by "not absolute", but it
is in black and white that this right shall not be infringed.--@atl134Exactly how can you regulate a right? Especially
with out infringing on that right?And do NOT use the "well
regulated militia" as an excuse. 'Regulated' as it was used circa
1789 meant functioning or working.In other words, the intention of
the 2nd amendment was for citizens to be able to act military if ever necessary.
The Final and Ultimate check and balance. It is unwise to take that right away,
or regulate (in today's vernacular) it away.---It seems the answer to every problem to the left is to punish the innocent,
the law abiding,common sense tells you that fixes NOTHING!.The answer is education, from gun education to moral education.That has always been the answer.Not to have big government have
more and more control control over you.The left seem to be
today's 'kingmen', they want a king to control and dictate their
lives and to take care of them from cradle to grave, they do not want true
freedom.True freedom requires a moral education.
The strawman argument put forth by "Say No to BO" and others that
somebody wants to disarm somebody else is dishonest and laughable.We
are talking about where we should draw the line here people, nothing else. Does
anybody think small nukes should be available US citizens to posses and carry?
What about anthrax and other chemical weapons? What about hand grenades and
launchers? Nobody is trying to disarm everybody and I believe most
people understand this. How about we quit the demonization and dishonesty and
have an adult-like discussion about where we should draw the line for a change?
Man does that pesky Constitution get in the way of Liberal, Socialist, communist
thinking.Cosmo said it dead perfect.One Old man Read
Cosmo again as to what special interest is. It is not always abortion rights
supporters.Xscribe: How about we decide what we have use for. It is
not up to you to decide what I want or do not want. Again if Liberals do not
want it no one else should either.Fred44 Please explain where the
language of the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment is flexible.
Again liberals.Finally all of your read Cosmo again.
Cosmo,The NRA membership is approx. 4 million. That amounts to just
over 1% of the total US population. "Congress pays heed to what
they say because many times they represent a large part of their constituency,
and so since they want to get re-elected, they try to keep that constituency
appeased."Your idea is right, but your numbers are off, which is
the flawed logic that both you and our elected officials make all the time with
regards to lobbying. 1% should not be able to prevent debate on legislation the
majority wants to talk about.
It is incredible to see the NRA tail wag the dog
The general population has the advantage of gun ownership. Gun owners are not a
minority in most parts of the country. The NRA stands up for the rights of this
great cross section of Americans and the reason they are "big and
powerful" is because they stand up for gun owners issues with regards to
efforts on the left (a minority) to regulate and disarm the majority.There is a limit in this high tech society as to what people should be free to
own and use.A 47 types may be a target. Most gun banners do not even
understand how to describe what they want to ban and use the wrong descriptions
and words in legislation so watch out folks. There are zillions of these
military type weopens out there. What is the government going to do about it is
the question. Many NRA members have no use for such weopens and they have no
practical use except for law enforcement to meet the bad guys with equal force.
And, this may be the ultimate reason law abiding gun owners want the too. Go
NRA, you understand how to defend our second amendment rights.
Most pistols owned by the American public and used for conceal carry and other
lawful purposes have the possibility of large capacity clips (15 rounds or so)
and also for the regular 10 round ones. This comes awfully close to the Military
Assault type weopens which operate in the same manner if semi automatic. Semi
automatic is what many of todays shotguns, rifles, and postols are.Because
of this, banning of semi automatic weopens, like some are suggesting who do not
know firearms terminology is a slipery slop when it comes time to propose
legislation. That is why we have the NRA to represent us and protect our rights.
Truth "not absolute" are not my words that would be Justice
Scalia's words. To the best of my knowledge there is no one proposing that
anyone's right to bear arms be infringed upon. But no where in the
constitution does it guarantee the right to bear any and all arms that an
individual would choose. I believe that the language as in most places in the
constitution was chosen very carefully. mohokat I would suggest
that you maybe do a little reading from those who wrote the constitution. They
in now way had the ego to believe they could foresee every potential situation
200+ years into the future. To that end they provided checks and balances and
gave the executive, legislative and judicial branches different powers and
responsibilities. These checks and balances allowed them to write a living
document flexible enough to meet the needs of future generations. I
find it amusing when the far right wants to attach a literal interpretation to
parts of the constitution while ignoring literal interpretations of other parts.
They want to be the ones to decide what that interpretation looks like, and
then call other people names who may disagree.Funny stuff
To the NRA sympathizers out there, what do you all plan to do with your assault
"[W]ho is trying to take away anyone's right to bear arms? The
extremely conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia has even said that the
second amendment is not absolute."Fred44:Justice
Scalia's comment centered on prohibiting felons from owning firearms. His
opinion in "Heller" also said firearms in common use cannot be banned.
The semi-auto modern sporting rifle is now in common use, having been with us
nearly 50 years. When our President initially said we need to give
up our freedoms for security, I assumed he was also talking about the freedoms
of those known to be mentally ill, like the Colorado theater shooter and the
Newtown shooter, and the freedoms of those who visually perpetrate gratuitous
images of gun violence which feeds the mentally ill. But there is no serious
discussion to further limit freedom of speech by banning gratuitous gun violence
from movies, or to further limit the freedoms those who are obviously mentally
ill.Nor will there be. We all know the gun-grabbers simply want to
dance in the blood of innocent victims to promote their agenda, and they seem to
be taking you and others here along for the ride.
"To the NRA sympathizers out there, what do you all plan to do with your
assault rifles?"other hand:I turned my full-auto
assault rifle back to Uncle Sam 40 years ago when I was honorably discharged. As
to the semi-auto modern sporting rifle I then bought, I still plan to use it to
hunt and protect my home and family, just like I have for 39+ years.
Liberals own guns, period. Liberals just aren't paranoid that all guns are
going to be taken away, like a lot of the righties would like to have us
believe. Again, this argument has been going on since I was a kid, and not much
has changed. And it won't change. And I always love the, You should live
somewhere else if you don't like it mentality that some seem to always
post. That's such a grown-up comment.Oh, and to those who
think they need their weapons to fight the government, if necessary: Good luck
"Justice Scalia has even said that the second amendment is not
absolute."Fred44:His comment in Heller were directed
to the limits of ownership (no felons), and not at the rights of law-abiding
citizens to own firearms in common use. The semi-auto modern sporting rifle has
been in common use since Colt introduced the AR-15 nearly 50 years ago.When I see discussions on limiting the freedom of speech of those who purvey
gratuitous gun violence in the name of entertainment, and on limiting the
freedom of the violently mentally ill that continue to walk among us, then your
point of view might be more credible. But I don't expect that to happen,
which means the usual suspects of political gun-grabbers are simply dancing in
the blood of innocent victims (of the mentally ill who have been deeply
influenced by violent movies and games) to further their long-standing agenda.
Too bad they are taking you and a few others here along for the ride.
Fred44 Liberals do in fact believe the Constitution is living and therefore
subject to change. In may be subject to additional ammendments but the ones that
are there are cast in stone. Having said that please with your knowledge of what
the framers thought or did not think please explain the flexibility in the
words. "Shall not be Infinged". They sound quite absolute to me. Words
have a meaninng.
As much as I'm loathe to, I think the NRA will be proven right. Congress
will talk, hold hearings, say some noble things, but in the end will not be able
to get a ban on assault weapons passed. What a sad commentary.Why so
many Americans feel the need to own weapons like that is a sickness that can
only be cured by a spiritual awakening on an individual level. That's
something that can not be legislated.
Public policy at its worst. Political knee-jerk reactions to a tragedy will
result in unintended consequences and not really fix the problem.Holmes
and Lanza are examples of untreated mental illness.Without a rifle Holmes
would have cooked up bombs similar to the ones found in his apartment.This
is all about the White House not letting a crisis go to waste in order to
further its agenda.
"This is all about the White House not letting a crisis go to waste in order
to further its agenda."______________________________Nor
should it. That's what responsible and effective governing is about.I think the White House will lose the fight this time around. But the
proliferation of assault weapons in our sciety will continue to grow into an
increasingly unbearable menace to public safety that outweighs any possible
benefits of availabily for public ownership. We may not have reached the
threshold yet but I think we will in due time. The arguments for assault weapon
public availability are growing increasingly hollow.
People have rights and groups such as lobbyists have been given almost excessive
powers by this Supreme Court, in elections and maybe in other decisions.
Lobbyists say they represent their portion or segment of people. However, they
can wield a large propotion of money to buy people and their votes, whether
citizens as a whole or their elected officials who gain by just being elected
once to Congress. In an age when people are inundated by the flow of
information, not all of it valid or true, people just can't screen or
strain all that data for true knowledge or just plain truth. Lobbyists have public relations and information people that twist information
to show their inputs are valid and "true" but may be far from the real
truth. Lobbyists can be good but since governments have these people register
and certify there must be a potential for lobbyists to have more than their
normal agenda, but a hidden agenda.The NRA has many points in their
various agendas, some good and others may not be good. The second amendment is
important as all sections of the Constitution of the United States of America.
When people push one, beware.
"...political gun-grabbers are simply dancing in the blood of innocent
victims...".The people who grabbed the killing machine away from
the coward who shot the congresswoman in AZ were political killing machine
grabbers dancing in the blood of innocent victims?
There You go Again, look up "metaphor", and then don't ignore the
word "political" in mine.Ignoring facts seems to be part of
the Talking Points here.
I guess in many peoples minds those that support the constitution are just a
"special interest" group. It's sad that you have forgotten what
your grandfathers fought for.
Hey Jimmy,Don't know about your grandfather...I know that my
grandfathers and ancestors surely did not put their lives at risk for what the
NRA and those associated with it, are are promoting in the year 2013.Common sense will win, Jimmy.
I still wonder why we want to provide another item for prosecution for those who
commit atrocities such as what happened in Connecticut, Colorado, and Oregon
recently. It is as if charging those people with murder is not enough so we need
to charge them with having a gun illegally too.So if you want to
keep guns away from criminals or the mentally ill or anyone else you just need
to provide appropriate incentives. Maybe we should tax all gun manufacturing at
a extremely high rate so that guns are too expensive to own. Then those who do
choose to own will protect them better from theft.We could also buy
all the guns off the street using the proceeds from the extremely high taxes.
It is disingenuous to use all gun deaths to support a ban on high
capacity guns because of an atrocity. These mass murder events are a tiny part
of the gun death statistics but because of the nature of the victims receive a
disproportionate share of the media attention.
Freedom is what I believe in. However, freedom has some limitations for the
rights we enjoy. We give up some rights to benefit the whole. However, freedom
does not mean that a person, whether classified sick or not, has the right or
liberty to kill others that are defenseless as many of these deaths are.
However, employees have rights to be protected and safe in the workplace.
Students, including the teachers, who are employees should feel protected in
their place of learning and teaching. However, even though there are plenty of
rules and regulations prohibiting those kinds of actions be people who have
plotted their way to commit the acts of violence, cannot be stopped by even
armed personnel at a site, whether a mall, school, church or other public or
private place. Malls have had security but violence still occurs in those
locations. People who plan these types of actions do the planning to get around
those locations. You can't build a wall around people to protect them. We
are a society of freedoms that we enjoy and give up freedoms, rarely. Go to
countries without freedoms and even they die at hands of others even their
Say No to BOMapleton, UTOf all groups Mormons ought to understand
what happens when you surrender your weapons.The Nauvoo Legion was
disarmed and they lost the Prophet and their city.============= Wrong.That happened in Missouri - under STATE law.At the time, Conservatives argued that States Government was superior to
Federal Government.The Civil War 19 years later clarified once and for all
they were wrong.....funny, it's not much different than
Conservative today.Right down to seceding from the Union....
xscribeColorado Springs, COOh, and to those who think they need
their weapons to fight the government, if necessary: Good luck with that![Agreed. The tribesmen in Afghanistan and Iraq with their AK-47s against
the U.S. Military, and that was without using our WMDs or heavy weaponry. BTW -
Even the tribesmen in the mountains around Pakistan were better trained than
Billy-Bob and his frineds with their weekend keggers. Hardly the highly trained
or "well regulated malitia" the 2nd ammendment protects.]rnoblePendleton, OR2:30 p.m. Jan. 14, 2013I still wonder why
we want to provide another item for prosecution for those who commit atrocities
such as what happened in Connecticut, Colorado, and Oregon recently. It is as if
charging those people with murder is not enough so we need to charge them with
having a gun illegally too.[Only James Holmes in Aurora Colorado
faces any charges. The others committed suicide after their crimes, so no
charges could ever be filed. Case closed.]
Mohokat you said "Liberals do in fact believe the Constitution is living and
therefore subject to change". So if only the liberals believe the
constitution is subject to change why are the republicans always proposing a
balanced budget amendment? Are republicans now liberals? You also said "In
may be subject to additional ammendments but the ones that are there are cast in
stone". You made this statement in reference to the constitution and its
amendments. I am assuming you are not familiar with the 18th amendment? It was
passed and then repealed with the 21st Amendment. Maybe things are not in stone
after all.JohninSLC glad you brought up the 1st amendment. This is
a great example of an amendment that is not an absolute. There are many
restrictions that have been placed on ones free speech, freedom of religion, and
freedom to assemble.
@LDS Lib Actually, the Nauvoo Legion was asked to surrender their weapons by
Illinois Governor Thomas Ford. They complied. And they were at the mercy of
militias in Carthage who kept THEIR guns. Neither the state nor the feds
protected the Saints.The Missouri problems were earlier.
@the truth"Exactly how can you regulate a right? Especially with out
infringing on that right?"We have the right to free speech but
people aren't allowed to make death threats. We have the right to freedom
of religion but religions can't offer virgins to volcanoes. "'Regulated' as it was used circa 1789 meant functioning or
working."Rules are often used to make things functioning or
working properly. I think my well-regulated argument holds quite well along with
the fact the Supreme Court in 2010 said nothing about gun regulations not being
allowed, just no total gun bans are allowed. Besides... the 21st
amendment gives us the right to have alcohol. Utah has shown that you can
definitely put regulations on that right.
Say No to BO,"....the Nauvoo Legion was asked to surrender their
weapons by Illinois Governor Thomas Ford. They complied. And they were at the
mercy of militias in Carthage who kept THEIR guns. Neither the state nor the
feds protected the Saints.______________________________The
Nauvoo Legion refused Ford’s pleas to disarm and kept its guns right down
to the departure from Nauvoo a year and eight months later. The decision to
leave Nauvoo was by mutual agreement worked out between Governor Ford and
Brigham Young. Yes, Joseph and Hyrum were murdered, and yes, the Mormons were
forced out of Nauvoo. But neither event was due to a lack of firearms in the
possession of the Saints.The Nauvoo Legion was twice the size of the
Illinois state militia. Governor Ford, who has been much maligned in some
Mormon-written histories, was hated by both sides. But it is due largely to his
credit that President Tyler didn’t have a total civil war on his hands in
For those cite the limitations of the First Amendment as the Supreme Courts
decision regarding yelling "fire" in a crowded theater......it's
all about intent. The intent of yelling "fire was to incite panic and
terror in a crowd for the amusement of a few. No one is advocating the intent
of the 2nd Amendment is to instill panic, et cetera. The 2nd is there as a
necessary right. When a person misuses that right, it is removed. Felons may
not possess firearms as a result of misuse. For the vast majority of firearms
owners, we haven't misused that right, so don't advocate that it be
@Craig ClarkNot according to John Taylor.HC Vol 7 page 113Ford
"disbanded" and "disarmed" the Nauvoo Legion.
a gun ban is a fraud - it is all political and doesn't do ANYTHING to make
people safer from gun violence. What it does do is take guns away from lawful
and legal gun owners who want to protect themselves and family. Most people have
NO idea what an "assault weapon" is. First of all a SEMI-AUTO handgun OR
rifle is NOT an assault weapon contrary to what the Obama media is reporting.
Biden and Obama are clueless and my 12 year old nephew knows more about guns
than they do - much more!! A 223 round from a semi-auto rifle is an excellent
deer rifle but it is also a great weapon for home protection. A TRUE assault
weapon is a FULL AUTO rifle such as an M-16 and really has no use outside of
military. I have no problem restricting the sale of FULL AUTO guns. This is all
a back door attempt to remove the 2nd Amendment of the constitution which the
radical communist left would love to do - there is no gun ownership in communism
and the Michael Moore's of the world would love nothing better than to live
Thank heaven for the NRA! Being a proud member of the NRA I see this
organization as THE one org that the radical communist left can't break
simply because gun ownership reaches into the heart of America from EVERY state
to EVERY state. The communist left (Michael Moor, Bill Maher, Hollywood and of
course the Obama media and the big chief himself in the White House etc..)
won't stop trying to ban all guns but this isn't gay marriage and it
isn't immigration and it isn't some other social issue - it is the
very HEART of what an American is. Gun owners live in liberal and conservative
states and everything in between and regardless of what party you belong to you
still reserve the right to protect yourself and family from bad guys.
I guess we will find out soon if Congress is owned by the People and the
Consitution or by liberal special interests and Obama.
Time for sanity and control over non sporting weapons used frequently by crazy
If a bill is written to close the gun show loophole, an amendment should be
added to allow shooters to use silencers. This would protect the hearing of
hunters and others.
re:one voteThe guns used at the grade school were semi-auto hand
guns. I own a .40 cal and my son owns a 9mm - both semi-auto handguns. These are
ALL non-sporting guns. What in the name of heaven does sporting or non sporting
have to do with owning a gun?? A concealed permit has nothing to do with hunting
or sporting - it has EVERYTHING to do with protection of your self and your
family. By the way - do you own a gun?? Have you shot a semi-auto hand gun? Are
you aware that a semi-auto 9mm handgun is THE most common gun owned my LAW
OBEYING citizens in this country for self protection? Holy geez - left wingers
truly are clueless people.