ALL weapons that can be used for self-defense can also be used to Kill.
It's up to the person.. not the weapon.We need to focus on
taking personal responsibility for how we use everything... then we could start
trusting our neighbors again instead of asking the government to step in and
force our neighbors not to drive the car they want, or use too much electricity,
or ask the government to disarm our neighbors so they are helpless without
someone from the government coming to protect them.We all need to
take more personal responsibility for our actions... and quit seeing the
government as a tool to control our neighbors, or expecting the government to
solve all our problems for us.
@Sunny - you despise the NRA because they help corporations make a profit
selling products that people want to buy? How is that a bad thing? Is it that
corporations are bad? Or are profits bad?
@one voteYou really believe that? If that's the extent of your
knowledge, no wonder you support gun control. It won't take the radical
left long to convince you also that guns used in sports should also be banned.
Why not try the old adage "Guns kill"?
Guns not for sports are just to kill.
LDS LiberalYou are a hoot... and you really belive the stuff you post!At 2:06 and 3:10 you told the same story (about the guy in NY who had
the police at his door revoking his constitutional rights because they got a
disparaging report on him). You said, "the man was mentally ill, had
thoughts of committing suicide, and was taking powerful psychotropic
medications"... But you conveniently failed to mention that the NY State
Police later said they made a mistake and issueed an apology and acknowledged
that the guy they descended on was the wrong guy. Instead you said, "The
State of New York was doing the right thing"... REALLY??? Even THEY
admitted that they did the WRONG thing!I can give you references to
their apology if you didn't read it.You really should stay up
on the news. You sound so silly claiming the police did the right thing in
this case. When we know they retracted all the accusations against him!
Inside of voting and primaries, we could have a bunch of duels and threats of
deadly force. Does your gun shoot down the drones that can turn people to dust
from miles away?
"Would allowing citizens to purchase machine guns, drones and nukes actually
improve Congress's approval rating" The NRA is HATED by the
socialist- communist - progressive left in this country simply because guns
don't exist in the hands of private citizens in a communist society (USSR,
China, Cuba, etc...). The NRA IS main stream America - the NRA IS a living,
breathing representation of the constitution and bill of rights and that is why
it is so hated by the Obama White House and all of the Washington liberals and
the stink hole of Hollywood. America is a nation divided thanks to Barack but
that was the "hope n change" plan all along. Expect more division, more
hate, more attacks against freedom and our Constitution because that is THE
master plan from the left. The American main stream is now in a minority with
the low information hand out crowd the growing majority. Where will the US be in
10 years? Perhaps Greece and other socialist Europe now in bankruptcy? Perhaps
Detroit and LA? These are all ugly step children of socialism. NY is in free
fall as well. By the way - machine guns are illegal. Wise up.
Thanks Dane. You make complete sense (tongue in cheek). Now, let's shut
down our military, since guns and munitions aren't a deterrent to any bad
government. And while we're at it, let's continue to blame the NRA,
and get the public's attention turned away from the Constitution and that
pesky 2nd Amendment. It's all their fault. Truth be told, Dane,
we're not all that stupid. But you keep up your radical leftist view.
We'll keep ours. By the way, I'm going to buy a gun today.
To those who think it is impossible to stand up to tyrants and governments with
far superior weaponry, why then do we honor the fallen victims of the Warsaw
Ghetto uprising? Facing superior forces they fought for a month before all
being killed. Why do we honor them? They were just to stupid to go peacefully
to the Triblinka death camp? This man was mentally unstable, had
been listed as a "danger to himself and/or others" by his Doctor
([professional psychiatrist]?), and had been prescribed powerful pyschotropic
[mind altering] medications (What were they, don't interject adjectives?),
and had been alerted to local authorities. No State police. You do
realize the meds were simple anti-anxiety not MSNBC talking points. Remember
that HIPPA law the government medical records would never be made available to
government or public access? Major breach of the law. You do realize that
Lisinopril a blood pressure med is mind altering. Ibupofen includes a warning
"psychiatric side effects have included case reports of pseudodementia and
psychotic exacerbation." Where's YOUR out-cry for them
and their rights? Pretty arrogant to think I don't support their rights.
But that was an attempt to
Who is the nra?A hired shill, shield, front, lobby, running
political cover for weapons manufacturers.Period.The
last thing a successful CFO/CEO would consider, if ever, when examining their
P&L statements, is the Founding Fathers.When weapons
manufacturers no longer need the nra to enable them to make a profit, from those
who put their money where their mouths are... they will drop the nra like a hot
rock...looking for a new tool to help them make even more money.
Yes, the big, bad, NRA! Who is the NRA? I'm the NRA. I agree with the
Founding Fathers when it comes to the right to bear arms. And I put my money
where my mouth is.
"That is totally irrelevant, And they had no probelm with owning the most
destructive weapons available in thier day, like the cannon."Those weapons had the ability to kill tens... not hundreds, thousands, or even
tens of thousands with a single use. They didn't have weapons where they
could operated from safe distances, and attack with impunity. But in the end, I
real do hope as you say, this is all irrelevant.If we come to a
time, that we need to institute policy change by killing our neighbors, that is
pretty mush a country I wish to have nothing to do with. Those who would
express their opinions via the end of a gun are not the kind of people I would
ever want to be leading this country. If we ever get to the point where
political changes requires the killing of elected leaders.... I will be the
first one heading for the doors. You can have that brand of America.
@UtahBlueDevilThat is totally irrelevant, And they had no probelm
with owning the most destructive weapons available in thier day, like the
cannon.--@Roland KeyserIsn't it
Obama's administration, via the DHS, that is hoarding ammunition?Isn't it Obama that wants to be able to use drones on his own
citizens?Isn't it the progressives, and the extreme left that
want to disarm the citizenry, and render them powerless and defenseless? From
What? For what reason? To what end?It is all about power and
control.The founders wanted the power and control in the hands of
the people,The left and progressive want quite the opposite, again,
one must ask why? Control in the hands of elitists using the central government.
To cjb, Mike Richards, J Thompson, RedShirt, & others:The Second
Amendment might have been an effective deterrent to government tyranny when it
was drafted and adopted, but it is completely inadequate to that purpose
today.If you think that the only thing standing in the way of the
United States becoming a totalitarian military regime is a bunch of citizens
with Ruger Mini-14s & Desert Eagles, then you are more deluded that I would
have believed possible.Let's put it this way -- in the
exceedingly unlikely event of an armed confrontation between the U.S. military
(defending the U.S. Government against insurrection, for better or worse) and
the aforementioned citizens, I like the military's chances . . .
Dene,Just because your friends tell you it's not a deterent...
doesn't make it so. Study history and it would easily prove them wrong.
Let's take a look at history both old and recent that disproves the
assertion that it's not a deterent.1. Armed non-military
population played a significant roll in the Colonies overcomming bad government
(King George of England)2. It kept Japan from seriously considering
invading the US mainland. General Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the
imperial Japanse Navy said it would be foolish to invade the American mainland
because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.If your
history illiterate friends say, "Well that was a long time ago, armed
civilians wouldn't be a serious deterent to a any modern military"...
1. Armed civilians in Viet Nam.2. Armed civilian militias in
Afganastan the held off the 2nd strongest military in the world, the Russian
military. 3. The Iraq military was wiped out in a day... but the armed
civilaian insurgency held off the strongest military the world has ever known
for a decade?Obviously an armed population can be a factor.
@jsf,I'm hoping that the date on that requirement said it all:
April 1st, otherwise, whoever sent that notice should be hauled into court in a
"New York minute". "Shall not be infringed" includes New York
jsfCenterville, UTOne example.========= Bad
example.or you didn't read the REST of the story -- This
man was mentally unstable, had been listed as a "danger to himself
and/or others" by his Doctor [professional psychiatrist], and had been
perscribed powerful pyschotropic [mind altering] medications, and had been
alerted to local authorities.BTW - I have divorced friends here in
Utah, who have had the law confisgate their guns due to frivelous ex-wife's
restaining order.Where's YOUR out-cry for them and their
jsfCenterville, UTOne example.On April 1st, a legal gun
owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state
ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department.
The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being
suspended as well.=========== Did you bother to
determine - Why?If you did - you would learn the man was mentally
ill, had thoughts of committing suicide, and was taking powerful psychotropic
medications with FDA Black Labels warning of the possible side-effects of
suicidal behavior intensifying.The State of New York was doing the
One example.On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York
reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender
any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the
person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law
enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the
surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as
written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the
one old man' ugottabkidn LOL!!!!!
How will the NRA react to background checks that deny gun sales to those on the
terrorist watch list? They may decide that background checks aren't so bad
jsf, if they proposed a law that will clamp down on running redlights. That
could lead to confiscation of my automobile.
jsf, let's see some good documentation for the "facts" you posted.
I won't hold my breath.
The Truth.... the founding fathers never foresaw a day when the militaries of
the world would have as the destructive power they have today. The gap between
the weaponry of a modern military and the average citizen is beyond anything
they could have comprehended. To pretend otherwise is unrealistic.But they also didn't foresee the bloodless revolutions that have happened
over the last couple of decades. in the last four, we have had 3 dictators
removed from office, without a full blown revolution. Poland gained its
independence. Germany was reunited. China has seen a huge turn from its
previous ways. Even in Vietnam and Cambodia, the communist party has lost its
stranglehold rule of tyranny - not through armed insurrection - but the will of
the people.So lets stop thinking that any number of AR-15s would
stop even the most average of modern military. THis idea of an 18th century
militia keeping the government at bey... this is a figment of the past. The
military has far too advance weapons... just because they haven't used them
doesn't mean they don't have the capability.
To "Dane Henderson" I think that former President Kadaffi, from Libya
might have another opinion about being afraid of guns in the hand of its
populace. So would the Russian Tsars, the Chinese government, Syria is learning
about guns in the hands of its people, Korea, and Vietnam understand what
happens when the populace doesn't agree with you and decide to make changes
outside of the ballot box.You forget that people can already buy
drones.To those of you who are want to remove guns from the hands of
citizens, did you see the news yesterday? A man in Salt Lake was going around
stabbing people until a legal gun holder stopped him. Would you have wanted
more people at Smiths to have been injured waiting for police?
Guns aren't a deterrent to bad government,But they are
absolutely required to replace bad government. NO wonder the left,and any
leftest or bad government in the history of the world wants to take them away,
and destroy any voice that supports them.--@cjbReading any thoughts by the founders on the second amendment, and military
weapons are exactly what it was meant to protect.
To little to late. Big brother is watching every move. Listening to every word
and reading every thing you wright. The golden rule is; he who has the gold
makes the rules. We are out gunned. The Gov. has stole the money, because the
could, by making legal to be entitled to be above the law.
If political change requires a gun to make it happen... it is doomed. If somehow one believes a threat of violent acts against elected officials is
required to preserve our government and constitution, they haven't paid
enough attention to history... at least in my opinion.Change based
on coercion is almost always the worst for of change. The NRA has
this point really really wrong.
Guns aren't a deterrent too bad government like the NRA says?----When all is said and done, it doesn't matter what the NRA
says. What matters is what the constitution says. What it says is ...Militias are necessary for the preservation of a free state. Also the right of
the People to have guns shall not be infringed.Yes the NRA does
speak of a tyranical government such as when the Nazis went after the Jews.
Other possibilities where citizen militias would be useful is to defend against
crime when the police or National Guard can't be there, or be there on
time, typically this would happen in a natural disaster. Oftentimes the police
can't be there to protect against a home invader in time therefor family
members have to be a militia to help preserve a state free against crime. Yes
NRA does emphasize government tyranny but there are other threats to a free
state where a militia can be of service.
The kind of guns protected by the 2nd Ammendment are the kind of guns that would
be suitable for militia service. Militarys around the world all have fully
automatic guns. However seldom are these guns ever used on fully automatic mode.
It very wasteful of ammunition and seldom does the need arise.Therefore our restriction in law of fully automatic guns is probably
constitutional. However to restrict people from having semi automatic guns would
not be constitutional because lesser guns would not be suitable for militia
service in today's world.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein unveiled a gun control proposal that would require
federally approved licensing of all owners of handguns and certain
semi-automatic weapons. official would then record the gun sale and
licensing with the Treasury Department. Applicants would be required to submit a
thumb print, a photograph, their name, birthplace and address, and sign a
statement swearing that the information is accurate. The licenses would be
renewable every five years and could be revoked. gun confiscation!!!!!!
It's sounds fine to me. No special interest money at all from Planned
Parenthood , NRA to GE. Absolutely fine with this liberal. Now we agree, get r
done. Too bad we can't get it done - because of special
interest $$$ that blocks it.
Will someone, anyone, please reference a single piece of legislation that would
confiscate a a legally owned firearm of any size or type or are we going to
continue with the absurdities that I read here? If you think you have the
weapons to defer the government from going after you for your crimes then go for
it. I for one would prefer to attempt to prevent legal gun sales to the
incompetent, in sane, and criminals. Please don't continue the delusion
that nothing can be done because otherwise let's repeal all public safety
laws because there are violators everywhere you turn. Doing nothing is approval.
What is the value of freedom? Apparently, most posters don't think much of
the concept of being independent from government control. They DEMAND that we
check our freedom at the door and that someone from the government be there to
see who gets which freedom. Is that the way it should work? I don't think
so. The people are in charge, not the government. Basic freedoms are
independent of the government. At no time have the people ceded those rights to
the control of the government.As long as people can't live
without a nanny, there will be those who call for government to fill that spot
in their lives. Unfortunately, too many people would rather listen to
platitudes from a "rock star" president than do the work required of a
free people to guard their freedoms from the pilfering fingers of corrupt
politicians whose first desire is take away our right to defend ourselves.Compare the taxes that England levied on us to the taxes that Obama
wants to levy and you'll see just how far we have fallen as a people who
claim to love freedom from government control.
Ironic that, after the Boston Marathon bombing, the media and many others were
quick to say, "Don't condemn all Muslims because of the act of a few
crazies."Yet, whenever there's a shooting, is the same
respect paid to all gun owners? Of course not.
"If this is a biased letter (against the NRA)the commentator needs to
remember that if he limits the NRA, he also must limit Planned Parenthood, La
Raza, pharmaceutical industry, Hollywood lobbyists, etc."Sounds
good to me. Lets stop all the outside money that is used to buy legislation.
(on both left and right causes.)
@Mad HatterYou said - "The primary concern of the NRA is to take
advantage of tragic events, manipulate them to increase fear and paranoia
amongst the American public, and make the gun industry greater profits."You've got to be kidding me. If anything it is the
anti-gun advocates that take advantage of tragic shootings. All the NRA and gun
owners are doing is attempting to defend themselves from the onslaught of
attacks. After the Newtown, Aurora and Tucson shootings, it was the
anti-gun advocates, allied by their friends in Hollywood (oh the hypocrisy
there) that first jumped in front of the TV cameras doing all the manipulating
and fear mongering. Read through just about any newspaper in the country. The
editorial and political cartoonists have spent the last few months attacking and
condemning the NRA and gun owners left and right.
Any honest look at the good government to guns correlation theory shows it to be
false. 1. The US has by far more guns per capita than any other
country. Twice as many as the nearest country Yemen and we have 20 - 50 times as
many as European nations.2. Our government is corrupted by special
interest money anyway. Guns are good at poking holes in things, they
are terrible personal defense. Being able to poke a hole in the other guy
doesn't keep him from poking a hole in you first. Don't let the guy
get in your house in the first place.10CC is right on too.
Bookemmarko:Drones are actually another excellent example of how the
1790 era 2nd Amendment context of citizens uprising against their own tyrannical
government becomes more absurd as weapons technology gets more sophisticated.
Are you going to be firing your AR-15 at the drones circling at
25,000 feet as they locate your position through high-tech guidance and prepare
to launch a missile to destroy everything in your vicinity on the ground?Here's what's really happening: the more Obama haters talk
about our current government being "tyrannical", the more the rest of us
think the hard right are themselves becoming radicalized, even more detached
from reality (eg, the Birthers) a potential threat, ala Tim McVeigh.You guys have worked yourselves into a paranoid fantasy, thinking the armed
forces will join you in overthrowing Obama, when all you're really doing is
sowing the seeds for more needless deaths under the guise of a hallucinatory
apocalyptic fantasy. Come on down out of the hills and talk
rationally with the rest of us.
Good letter, silly rebuttals. Done.
The people having guns may not deter bad government, but I'm sure that
those in government that want to take away those weapons would sleep better if
they were successful...
Dane true to liberal form you totally misunderstand the argument about guns and
the relationship to a free people. Neither the NRA nor gun owner claim that guns
prevent "bad" government. Stupid voters have caused bad government. Guns
ownership and an armed citizenry prevent a tyrannical Government from taking
away your other constitutional rights is part of the argument. Your ludicrous
statement about owning drones and and other large military equipment has never
been the desire or freedom loving people, but the average citizen should be
allowed the arms of an average soldier for defense in the event of a government
I agree with the letter writer! Get rid of special interest money so that our
representatives can get back to doing our business! All they do is the bidding
of their corporate masters. Corporations are NOT people.
The citizens of the United States have more guns now than at any time in
history. We also have more public and private debt now than at any time in
history. We also have more illegal immigrants, or is it undocumented workers,
now than at any time in history. Millions of guns in citizens hands contribute
zero answers to these major problems. They have dubious value in maintaining a
It's not tyranny of the government over the people we need to
fear.It's tyranny of the NRA over the government.
Dan... in most ways I completely agree with you. The NRA is a special interest
group of a shrinking percentage of our population. There isn't much the
NRA does I think that promotes the real interest of "gun owners". They
are clearly interested in other segments.But, and as much as I hate
to say this, we have to protect special interest groups rights. Women gaining
the right to vote started as a special interest groups agenda. Equal rights
under the law was started as a special interest groups agenda. There were
competing interest groups to both of these. The Klan was a large lubby group
that opposed both of these - as was better funded - that ultimately lost the
battle. It took blacks nearly 100 years after so call freedom to actually gain
political equality under the law. ERA ultimately failed. It asked
for too much, but its overall goals have largely been recognized. The NRA will
eventually fail. In my area, the majority of democrats I know are also gun
owners. There is no solid blockagains the NRA right now. But eventually they
will over step, and the tide will turn, and reasonable laws passed.
I find it odd that the people who say we need weapons to protect ourselves from
the government are the very same people who want the government to amass more
and more weapons.
Dane, you are looking at this issue completely incorrectly. Its only a bad
government that would try to take guns away from free citizens. It's called
FREEDOM! What kind of government restricts people's freedom? That's
right, a bad government, just like what bad governments did in Nazi Germany,
communist Russia, and every other dictatorship in the history of the world! And
you are all in favor of that, right?
Does anyone REALLY think our elected representatives are ever going to do
anything that stops the gravy train from flowing to their campaigns?The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue.It would take a
constitutional amendment to change things. Good luck with that!If
this is a biased letter (against the NRA)the commentator needs to remember that
if he limits the NRA, he also must limit Planned Parenthood, La Raza,
pharmaceutical industry, Hollywood lobbyists, etc.Just because the
columnist doesn't like the results of NRA lobbying, he needs to realize
they (the NRA)worked as all lobbyists do. To influence votes.
The primary concern of the NRA is to take advantage of tragic events, manipulate
them to increase fear and paranoia amongst the American public, and make the gun
industry greater profits. Concerns about gun safety and keeping guns out of the
hands of criminals, terrorists, mentally-unstable, and others in the public
interest is essentially non-existent despite the rhetoric from the NRA. In
fact, the NRA would probably like to eliminate background checks currently
required of licensed gun stores. It doesn't make much sense to
require background checks when purchasing a gun at a licensed gun store when an
individual is not required when purchasing a gun in any other venue. The NRA
appears to be fine with a criminal or terrorist purchasing a gun and leave it up
to "good guys with a gun" to shoot it out when confronted by the
"bad guy with a gun."And the whole nonsense about having to
defend hearth and home against a tyrannical government is simply ludicrous.
Considering the mess we have in Congress, the idea of government becoming
tyrannical is too silly for words. They can't get anything done with the
crazy nuts we have there now.
There you go, showing common sense and everything. Expect to hear from some