According to some, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that citizens have enough firepower to overthrow the federal government, should it become necessary to do so. If the government ever loses its fear of such a revolt, the theory goes, our liberty ends and tyranny begins.
Let me be blunt: That is mythological claptrap. But like a lot of mythological claptrap, it can push weak-minded people — the Timothy McVeighs of the world — to do stupid and dangerous things.
It is certainly true that when the Second Amendment was drafted back in the 18th century, it was plausible to believe that an armed citizenry could be a check on overweening government power. Back then, there wasn’t much difference in the weapons available to private citizens and the weapons available to the military. It could have been, and sometimes was, a more or less even fight.
Today, that is no longer the case, and it hasn’t been the case for a century or longer. Around the world, governments have access to a range of weaponry that private citizens have no hope of matching or withstanding. There is simply no comparison between the brute, deadly force that a government can wield and that wielded by private citizens, individually or collectively. Technology has rendered that aspect of the Second Amendment a dead letter.
If you want to rejuvate that aspect of the Second Amendment, you have to be willing to grant private citizens access to fully automatic weapons, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers, etc. And it’s not going to happen.
That’s not just my opinion. It is also the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, as expressed by one of its most conservative members, Justice Antonin Scalia, in the most important Second Amendment opinion the court ever issued.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, issued in 2008, Scalia and the court made it clear for the first time that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” But in that same opinion, Scalia brushed aside claims that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the means to armed revolution. He concluded that technology has rendered that part of the amendment an archaic artifact, because “a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large” and that “no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”
For that reason, Scalia made it clear that the Second Amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” and that the government is fully within its rights to ban military-style weaponry.
In Iraq, for example, gun ownership is extremely widespread, with many if not most households owning fully automatic weapons that would be banned in this country. Yet Saddam Hussein had little trouble imposing and maintaining a brutal dictatorship in that country for decades. He did not confiscate guns, because he understood that such guns posed no real threat to his tyranny.
And as Joshua Keating notes at ForeignPolicy.com, look at Tunisia and Egypt, where private gun ownership is very low but citizens have nonetheless managed to overthrow brutal military dictatorships. If government now has a massive advantage in terms of brute force, innovations such as Twitter, Facebook, cellphones and satellite TV have more than offset it in the cause of freedom.
Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.
– Jay Bookman
1,326 comments Add your comment
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
8:15 am
But but but Wolverine!
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
8:16 am
Oh geez Jay’s done it now. Tricorn tinfoil hat parade in 3…2…1….
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
8:20 am
This will make some crazies sooooo unhappy.
Whatever will they do with their basements full of prepper gear?
.
.
.
.
Do they all have to have chin mullets?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
8:21 am
The Tyranny crowd believes that at some point they are “justified” in killing law enforcement, govt officials and civilians. But they never tell us what the “test” is to determine when they have this “second amendment remedy”. Was it tyranny when civil rights were denied in the south by state governments (and where were they they)? Was it tyranny when Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps (and where were these “freedom fighters”? Could McVeigh have asserted a viable defense that the tyranny crowd would support by claiming that he determined he saw tyranny and he took action as is his “second amendment” remedy right?
Come on cons….tell us when does this right arise in clear and uncertain terms.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
8:22 am
Comment on the lead: cogent, accurate, expressed so any reasonable person can understand it.
Prediction on the responses: we’re going to see a new record diversion and for denial unsupported by fact.
It will be entertaining.
Unless…. some of our most vocal bloggers will will be strangely scarce today?
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
8:24 am
But… but… the War of Northern Aggression.
independent thinker
January 17th, 2013
8:25 am
“a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state” – prerequisite to gun rights or claptrap nonsense per the NRA and Antonin Scalia?? How was Nancy Lanza’s possession of a small arsenal necessary for the security of the citizens of her state? Oh I forgot according to Beck and the NRA she was a check on Obama and Biden’s tyrrany. That’s why we have a toothless ATF while the NRA openly promotes trafficking in illegal gun sales.
godless heathen
January 17th, 2013
8:27 am
dead-threaded again. Jay should give us a 2-minute warning. From below:
I watched the “Hooker” video. Typical of conspiracy minded folks they latch onto inconsistencies in media reports as evidence of some sinister acts. That said I do look forward to reading a full accounting of the day’s events so some questions can be answered.
such as:
Was the father of a slain little girl really laughing at the presser on the day after his daughter was murdered?
Who was the poor guy that got drug out of the woods, placed in handcuffs and placed in the front seat of a police car? I always figured it was hunter that was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I’d like to hear his story.
Why was the medical examiner so giddy during his presser? Was he on drugs, or is he just a goofy f**k?
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
8:28 am
Unless…. some of our most vocal bloggers will will be strangely scarce today?
That would be a shame, I’d love to see them argue Scalia is a leftist-marxist trying to enslave ‘Merica.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
8:29 am
“Second Amendment is not license for treason, armed revolt”
Corrrect
And, it’s not doing anything to stop the Obama tyranny either.
Guns are not the problem.
As usual and most always, its the people allowing the politicans to lead them around by the nose while they strip their liberties.
Thomas
January 17th, 2013
8:30 am
Today, that is no longer the case, and it hasn’t been the case for a century or longer.
Did I miss the hookah pipe this morning? Did “we” win Afghanistan? Have “we” won the war on terror? Are we protecting our embassies? Do you really think some “private citizens” are not obtaining or do not have some type of nuclear device? Do you really think the rest of the world lives in fear and trepidation of their particular gov’t because of its weapons arsenal or because of the govt’s encroachment on personal liberty?
And no- I am not a gun nut. One hand me down 12 gauge from my father that I do not know how to load.
Bookman- you should write about the connection between prescription drugs and mass US killings-
Cherokee
January 17th, 2013
8:30 am
and right on cue….
Gale
January 17th, 2013
8:31 am
Aw Jay. Your last line brought tears to my eyes. Jeez, I have been so frustrated by the last couple days of comments. I wonder that the planet has not been tipped from its axis from all the knee jerks. Your early paragraphs made me think of Egypt and Syria, where rebellion has been bloody and fierce, with many, many noncombatants killed. Do the knee jerkers really want to see that here?
The Truth
January 17th, 2013
8:31 am
The real reason for the Second Amendment: http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
George J Westfall
January 17th, 2013
8:33 am
“Today, that is no longer the case, and it hasn’t been the case for a century or longer. Around the world, governments have access to a range of weaponry that private citizens have no hope of matching or withstanding. There is simply no comparison between the brute, deadly force that a government can wield and that wielded by private citizens, individually or collectively. Technology has rendered that aspect of the Second Amendment a dead letter.”
If your statement were true, the war in Afghanistan would have been over by now.
Gale
January 17th, 2013
8:35 am
JohnnyReb makes a good point about people being led by politicians being the problem. An informed electorate is a better tool to protect liberty.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
8:35 am
As usual and most always, its the people allowing the politicans to lead them around by the nose while they strip their liberties.
You should disavow any knowledge of Bush before making such statements.
Cherokee
January 17th, 2013
8:36 am
And when the US becomes in any way like Afghanistan, that might be relevant.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
8:36 am
Have you invested yet in medical brown shirt manufacturing?
David Neckolaishen
January 17th, 2013
8:36 am
I support the NRA!!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
8:36 am
JB: And, it’s not doing anything to stop the Obama tyranny either.
So JB, now be brave and let’s follow your statement to its conclusion. You claim that Obama is committing tyranny. Can someone now constitutionally, based on your determination of tyranny, pick up a gun, claim their “second amendment remedy” right and start killing law enforcement or government officials.
YOU have stated THERE IS TYRANNY NOW. Are you claiming YOU have a 2d Amendment remedy NOW? If so, what is YOUR reason for not “acting”?
Jed Eckardt
January 17th, 2013
8:36 am
And the presidency is not a license to sign away constitutional rights, either, Bookman. But whatever. Tell that to the folks in Germany when Hitler came to power. Their guns were taken and they had no way to fight back. Six million Jews murdered because they had no way to defend themselves. Gun confiscation under Stalin……millions died with no way to fight back. Oh, but that won’t happen in America, right Bookman? Right?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
8:36 am
Correction: JohnnyReb not JB. My mistake
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
8:37 am
Liberty Strippers??
Do they dance on a flag pole?
godless heathen
January 17th, 2013
8:37 am
In District of Columbia v. Heller, issued in 2008, Scalia and the court made it clear for the first time that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”
Good enough for me. Good day.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
8:38 am
This commentary on the actual reasons behind the 2nd Amendment (that it was basically a wet, sloppy BJ to slave owners) seemed to upset the tender feefees of our Towncrier yesterday. Since it’s on-topic, I’ll repost.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery?tmpl=component&print=1
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
[...]
By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. [...]
These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).
Own your history, 2nd Amendment fans.
(I’ll go right on thinking it was a cowardly, poorly written-by-committee PoS from the get-go. We’re stuck with it, but that doesn’t mean that we have to be chained to it by those who have a romantic notion of what it was really all about.)
Steve-USA (I don't have all the answer's, I don't even know all the questions)
January 17th, 2013
8:38 am
I agree with the Jay’s article. I do enjoy though how the Supreme Court is either geniuses or political hacks depending upon if their decision backs ones opinion or not.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
8:38 am
The cons are now Afghan patriots.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
8:39 am
Jed, Hitler actually gave more gun rights…but you don’t deal in reality do you?
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
8:39 am
That said I do look forward to reading a full accounting of the day’s events so some questions can be answered.
Heathen, if a father of a murdered child acts in a way you consider “abnormal” that’s simply not your business. Unless your kid has been blown away by a crazy you don’t know what you’d do. You and every other random d00d have snap-formed opinions and prurient curiosity, so what? The world doesn’t revolve around them.
This Hooker conspiracy—like others—is simply an example of a-holes with University of Google degrees thinking they know everything about everything.
Cherokee
January 17th, 2013
8:39 am
Sorry Jed. Wrong.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
The law Hitler signed in 1938 actually made guns more accessible, not less.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
8:40 am
Tell that to the folks in Germany when Hitler came to power.
More guns would’ve meant the targeted minorities could’ve been dispatched even more quickly by Kraut freelancers, likely as not.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
8:41 am
Obama tyranny…
First moronic phrase of the day from the blog’s paranoid fringe.
This is not going to turn out well for the new age
rebelstraitors.Just ask the surviving government/America haters at Ruby Ridge…
Gale
January 17th, 2013
8:42 am
The war in Afghanistan cannot be won because the people are not interested in a central government, not their own or anyone else’s.
Ken
January 17th, 2013
8:42 am
I think that Mr. Bookman’s next to last paragraph said that the Arab spring once again proved that the pen is mightier than the sword.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
8:43 am
Afghanistan? Yes, let’s talk Afghanistan.
With all the guns in private hands there, how “free” are its people?
How was freedom and liberty faring under the Taliban dictatorship before we arrived? Did all those guns allow the Afghans to employ “Second Amendment remedies” and overthrow the viciously repressive Taliban? No, not even close. The Taliban had a death grip on most of the country.
So yes, let’s throw Afghanistan into the argument.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
8:43 am
Wait….based on the info Jay provided….Antonin Scalia is a Liberty Stripper?
Ba da bing!
Simple Truths
January 17th, 2013
8:43 am
Claptrap!
Skewed polls!!
Ok, just wanted to get that out of the way.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
8:43 am
Six million Jews murdered because they had no way to defend themselves.
Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.
Matt Eckardt
January 17th, 2013
8:43 am
What wisdom, Bookman…..I guess that’s why no revoloution ever succeeded during the 20th century, right? Nothing happened in Russia, Cuba, China…….because the rebels didn’t have access to the right weapons, right Bookman? Yeah, the governments won all those battles, right? To borrow a phrase of yours…..Mythological claptrap.
Brendan O'Brien
January 17th, 2013
8:44 am
A whole low of selective history here. Also a low of misunderstanding about the second amendment. The gun ownership is a private, individual balance of the people who give the government consent to rule. You characterize that balance of power as if it is about troops lining up on a field against private gun owners all at once. Crazy and unjustified characterization, small arms on an individual level were used both in this country and others to protect against government forces and prevent greater atrocity. You use Iraq as an example of where gun ownership failed to prevent a dictatorship, just because some citizens have guns doesn’t mean that all of them do. For example gun ownership was very low in this country among blacks, native americans and Japanese, all groups we have oppressed and murdered at the hands of government firearms. Yes, whites had guns but that doesn’t mean they were in the right hands needed to prevent oppression. German had firearms during Nazi rule but firearms were explicitly confiscated from Jews, so the only people who had guns were the German who SUPPORTED the Nazis. Just like in Iraq, there is NOW widespread gun ownership, but back when Sadaam was committing genocide was unlikely as widespread as it is now among the Kurish people, And lastly the weakest argument possible is to say, well if a tyrannical government was to commit genocide on our own people we would do very little to stop them so we should disarm even more. If anything the fact that the people of this country couldn’t stop a systematic genocide if it came to that, is an argument for better arming and better balancing the power against the people so that the government will only rule when it has the consent of the people. Weak article.
Marco112
January 17th, 2013
8:44 am
Would all the brave gun control people please put signs in their yards declaring their homes to be a gun free zone?Would that ensure the criminal element would respect your decision and never do violent crimes again?
Don Abernethy
January 17th, 2013
8:45 am
Why is Hollywood and the violent films and video games not mentioned in the wonderful 24 steps?? Could it be that Hollywood owns the White House??
Get me Rex Kramer
January 17th, 2013
8:46 am
I agree with you 100%. However, much of the NRA strategy is that giving in at all will only lead those who want to outlaw all guns to be further embolden. Their commercial speaking of Obama’s children having armed security was completely out of line, but I do understand their ultimate goal.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
8:47 am
Good Fight – apparently you do not think Obama’s 19, 23 or ever how many executive orders are tyranny.
It’s a big jump from personal liberty and 2nd rights to attacking people. Everyone I know looks at this debate from a defensive posture, not offense.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
8:47 am
Marco112
January 17th, 2013
8:44 am
Would all the brave gun control people please put signs in their yards declaring their homes to be a gun free zone?Would that ensure the criminal element would respect your decision and never do violent crimes again?
.
.
.
Sure, right after you post notice of the arsenal in your basement.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
8:47 am
Could it be that Hollywood owns the White House??
If they do it is in part because you immoral minority hypocrites cannot give them your money fast enough…
Arnold Pierson
January 17th, 2013
8:48 am
If government weapons are so overmatched for citizens with guns, then why are we having such a tough time winning the war on terror? Our billions of dollars spent on weapons can hardly keep up with armed children and IEDs.
You are wrong.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
8:48 am
Would all the brave gun control people please put signs in their yards declaring their homes to be a gun free zone?
we’ve cycled back to THIS ancient gun-nut trope, have we?
Just earlier this week I was being told by the gun-nuts here that we couldn’t collect information about gun owners because those private homes might be targeted by gun theives.
Which is it, Marco? Try to get your story straight, won’t you?
Dennis Wayne
January 17th, 2013
8:48 am
This is nothing more than unAmerican propaganda brought to you by one of our Zionist enemies.
Thomas
January 17th, 2013
8:48 am
I guess, George, the US and Russia didn’t win the war in Afghanistan because they didn’t want to win. Further, it is not relevant to point out that the worlds greatest gov’t military cannot win a war against a third world country.
Love to hear that one from an NFL coach on Monday morning.
Anyway- normal extremist view. You shouldn’t arm yourself because it will not help against the incredible force of a gov’t. Never in the history of mankind has a gov’t tried to do anything with force against its people so there is no reason to arm yourself.
If it weren’t so sad it would be funny. Anyway- highest and best use of liberal is for them to blog each other all day v. creating value. Have a great one!
independent thinker
January 17th, 2013
8:48 am
Good ole Gawgia – haven for gun traffickers:
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”A fresh analysis of data for crime guns recovered by police and traced back to the dealer that sold the gun provides additional evidence showing that strong gun laws help to curb the supply of guns to the illegal market. The ATF data, available on its website, provide information on the source states of U.S. crime guns by state. The data show that states with weak gun laws have a crime gun export rate nine times higher than states with strong gun laws.
The Brady Center analyzed the data to identify patterns in the movements of crime guns across the United States, including which states have the highest rates of crime guns moving across state borders, known as the crime gun export rate (per 100,000 population).
Texas, Georgia, Ohio, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and West Virginia are among the 31 states that together export crime guns at a rate nine times higher than states with strong gun laws.”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”
Georgia scored 8 out of 100 on controlling gun trafficking.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/14
Cherokee
January 17th, 2013
8:49 am
So, Brendan, when you use your ’small arms on an individual level … to protect against government forces’
like the local police force. or the National Guard, let us know how that works out for you.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
8:49 am
“Why is Hollywood and the violent films and video games not mentioned in the wonderful 24 steps?? Could it be that Hollywood owns the White House??”
Maybe because it WAS mentioned. As one of the executive actions, Obama committed to studies by the CDC into any possible linkage between video games/violent media and acts of violence.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
8:49 am
Don Abernethy
January 17th, 2013
8:45 am
Why is Hollywood and the violent films and video games not mentioned in the wonderful 24 steps?? Could it be that Hollywood owns the White House??
see # 14
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
8:49 am
LOL….. What exactly is the point of an assault ban Jay? Why do you and your dem friends want to take guns from people?
Jerome Horwitz
January 17th, 2013
8:49 am
We in the US have an option not available to most of the world. It’s called a VOTE. That’s your protection against tyranny. Not an AR-15.
Jed Eckardt
January 17th, 2013
8:50 am
Typical liberal crap articles, and I believe them abut as much as you Commies believe Fox news.
BW
January 17th, 2013
8:50 am
Thank you for publishing this Jay! My goodness are some of you people insane? There will never again be the conditions that were in 1776….stop pretending that you wouldn’t be crushed in an armed rebellion…and something tells me that such people wouldn’t just turn on the feds….I get the distinct feeling that some “qualms” with certain civilians would be settled as well
petrica
January 17th, 2013
8:50 am
do you suggest that US government is prepared to use say the A-bomb on it’s people?
A US top politician is still vulnerable to a bullet , and will be, despite any advances in gun technology.
indigo
January 17th, 2013
8:50 am
It’s no accident that many believe the second ammendment exists to ensure citizens have enough firepower to protect themselves against the Government.
The NRA, offical mouthpiece of gun manufacturers, has been skillfully brainwashing simple Americans to actually believe this. The real purpose, of course, is to keep gun sales booming and generous profits continuing for their Business clients.
Unfortunately, there is no cure for simple mindness. So the brainwashing and propaganda will continue and gun sales will continue and there will be all smiles in the corporate boardrooms.
Banderson
January 17th, 2013
8:50 am
@Marco112 – Why don’t the gun owners just put signs in their yards? The gun owners seem to get very mad when any newspaper publishes their names and addresses. Since they’re so safe with their guns, what’s the big deal?
Tom
January 17th, 2013
8:50 am
Depite your arguements you have forgotten the history of the world and how ALL great civilizations came to fall and of course how they came to power.
Indeed our forefathers could not have anticipated today’s weaponry but my arguement is they didn’t have to. What they did understand was man & mankind and how unchecked despots are created. NO one argues we shold have parity with military weapons but there needs to be a “chance” should the unthinkable ever happen. Again history is replete and even today throughout the world does not support your claim. I too wish I could live in the land of Disney but reality smacks me back to earth.
joe
January 17th, 2013
8:50 am
The African nations that have experienced revolution also had advanced weaponry, and look what happened there.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
8:50 am
JohnnyReb, you assert again that there is tyranny being “imposed” on YOU. So now how are YOU going to “defend” under your so-called 2d amendment remedies? Are you saying that your right ONLY arises when law enforcement comes to your house? Here is your chance to clear explain to us all since you have made a determination that there is current tyranny, what the constitution permits YOU and others like YOU to do.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
January 17th, 2013
8:51 am
Woohoo, I’m giving my kid land mines and grenade launchers for his birthday!
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
8:51 am
Good Fight – apparently you do not think Obama’s 19, 23 or ever how many executive orders are tyranny.
Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.
President Number of Executive Orders
Ronald Reagan 381
George Bush 166
William J. Clinton 364
George W. Bush 291
Barack Obama 144
Greg
January 17th, 2013
8:51 am
You might want to open up a browser and check some news sources and look for stories about what is happening in the Middle East. Armed citizens all over the Arab world are taking on corrupt governments.
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
8:51 am
Jed Eckardt – “Their guns were taken and they had no way to fight back”
By all means Jed, please share with the rest of us who these people were that came to your home and demanded that you turn over your fire arms. I’m sure we’d all like to know what to look for should they come to our homes next.
Hank
January 17th, 2013
8:52 am
This is one opinion and only one. If you do not choose to have weapons of any kind that is YOUR choice but not MINE. If any one reading this crap believes that by outlawing guns killings will just disappear then you have your head in th sand. America does not need ANY more laws. Gun control has never worked and will not work in the future..get that thru your thick skulls. You can call The NRA all the names you want but the truth is still the truth. If someone wants you dead…you’re dead either by a gun, kinfe, baseball bat, or by a homemade bomb. I garentee you this…take away every gun in America and you will see the bombing attacks that they have in the Middle East and Europe.
Jtyler
January 17th, 2013
8:52 am
“Guns are an important element in any truly free society, for a society that does not trust its citizens with individually owned weapons really does not trust its citizens.” And to Cite Salon.com is ridiculous to say the least if your trying to base your argument from unbiased sources.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
8:53 am
“I support the NRA!!”
Is this the 2013 equivalent of “WOLVERINES!” ?
It was just remade, after all -
mm
January 17th, 2013
8:53 am
As usual, this only comes up when a Democrat is in the WH.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
8:53 am
“Maybe because it WAS mentioned. As one of the executive actions, Obama committed to studies by the CDC into any possible linkage between video games/violent media and acts of violence.”
Mighty weak Jay, mighty weak. Obama should have called them out specifically and you know it. But no, the hypocrite dances to their and unions strings.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
8:53 am
What exactly is the point of an assault ban Jay? Why do you and your dem friends want to take guns from people?
Placing a ban on future purchases is not “taking guns from people.”
The moment we put in place something as was done in Australia, where they (wisely) implemented a buy-back program that took a boatload of arms out of circulation, you will be able to post what you posted without being a liar.
Given that you know that what you post is a lie, well, I’m not supposed to call names. But you know what you are.
tom
January 17th, 2013
8:54 am
to Jay Bookman ever hear of a place called Viet Nam,10 years,60,000 dead,tanks,b-52s,endgame?
they did not beat the army,but they did force us to leave.
Read your history.
A Smith
January 17th, 2013
8:55 am
This article is simply wrong. It also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment, not to mention that small arms have been historically effective against superior forces. Furthermore, the current restrictions on arms are, in fact, in violation of the 2nd amendment already; the government has already way overstepped its bounds.
Jm
January 17th, 2013
8:55 am
“Today, that is no longer the case, and it hasn’t been the case for a century or longer. Around the world, governments have access to a range of weaponry that private citizens have no hope of matching or withstanding. ”
good argument for military downsizing
petrica
January 17th, 2013
8:55 am
“As one of the executive actions, Obama committed to studies by the CDC into any possible linkage between video games/violent media and acts of violence.”
” ‘Creep in,’ said the witch, ‘and see if it is properly heated, so that we can put the bread in.’ And once Gretel was inside, she intended to shut the oven and let her bake in it, and then she would eat her, too. But Gretel saw what she had in mind, and said: ‘I do not know how I am to do it; how do I get in?’ ‘Silly goose,’ said the old woman. ‘The door is big enough; just look, I can get in myself!’ and she crept up and thrust her head into the oven. Then Gretel gave her a push that drove her far into it, and shut the iron door, and fastened the bolt. Oh! then she began to howl quite horribly, but Gretel ran away and the godless witch was miserably burnt to death. ”
This is not from a video game or from a Hollywood movie.
Nobama
January 17th, 2013
8:56 am
Let me be blunt : Bite me Jay
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
8:56 am
Scalia says you cons have the right to one musket per the constitution. You have to make your own musket balls though. And gunpowder.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 17th, 2013
8:56 am
JohnnyReb’s right. Well, partially right anyway.
“As usual and most always, its the people allowing the politicans to lead them around by the nose while they strip their liberties.”
This is right as long as we remember that it is primarily their economic liberties that the people allow to be deprived of them, not some vague amorphous set of liberties. And it is not entirely the politicians who are the authors of the deception either, but the class interests they represent in the most servile way.
Cherokee
January 17th, 2013
8:56 am
Good response Jed – don’t let facts get in your way. Kinda proved Keep’s point, didn’t ya…
Jed Eckardt
January 17th, 2013
8:56 am
A vote? Are you kidding me? As much voter fraud that has been perpetrated since 2000, and you talk about a vote? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
8:56 am
Obama should have called them out specifically and you know it.
J-Reb:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/transcript-obama-remarks-on-gun-violence/
And while year after year, those who oppose even modest gun safety measures have threatened to de-fund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it. And Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds.
We don’t benefit from ignorance. We don’t benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence.
How much more specific would you like the President to be? How much time was he supposed to spend on *your* pet peeve? Please enlighten us.
Citizen
January 17th, 2013
8:57 am
>Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.
>– Jay Bookman
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
-Citizen
kawasaki kid
January 17th, 2013
8:57 am
Jay, you’ve just let the cat out of the bag. Gun manufacturers want everyone to believe they must arm themselves against criminals, race riots, and the government. More sales = more profit, and scaring simple-minded folks is incredibly easy to do.
Nobama
January 17th, 2013
8:57 am
Let me be blunt : Jay – Bite Me
Banner123
January 17th, 2013
8:57 am
Jay, couple of comments and disagreements with your argument.
What is your source that Iraqis citizens had were armed during Saddam’s rule. I agree after his downfall that they pillaged the Iraqi army weapons depots and got their weapons. But during Saddam’s rule, I don’t think so.
I have heard the argument you cannot stand up to the government because of the fire power and people give examples of what happened to the Branch Davidians as proof. While I agree several dozen couldn’t stand up to them. I highly doubt if 1 Million or so people marched on Washington with their guns to state we need a change that the government could do much about that. I really doubt if it came to that, the Army, Police and other LEO’s would really try to stop them or be able to. That is what the 2nd amendment is for is for.
Whatever
January 17th, 2013
8:58 am
Jay,
My argument isn’t guns so I can go shoot somebody. My argument is that ultimately, over time, our rights keep us free and the founding fathers knew that an armed populace was an important part of that. I believe it is still as an important part of that as free speech.
Many people want to rewrite the Constitution because times have changed. That is dangerous because the 2nd Amendment will just be the first to fall. What happens when speech that is accepted today is determined to be dangerous next year? Will we let it be stripped away? According to this logic many would say yes.
Enjoy your conversation. I’m off to work.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
8:58 am
Armed citizens all over the Arab world are taking on corrupt governments.
Why yes, they are. And without outside help they generally get their @$$es kicked.
Despite the con worship of the rugged ‘Merican patriot, if the French hadn’t intervened we’d still be loading crumpets into the boots of our cars.
GT
January 17th, 2013
8:59 am
Since the fall of communism the treat of a foreign invasion has withered. This tool used by such luminaries as Richard Nixon to trump a more logical opponent in campaigns has left a dark hole in the resources of the right. These homespun politicians use fear and religion as their vehicles to power.
The total impact of 9/11 was weak compared to one day in the lives of London under the night bombing of Hitler, yet it saved Bush’s second term. It is an act that never happen before Bush or after, unlike nightly bombings by the Germans. And it hasn’t been stopped by any weapon hidden under someone’s bed in this country. The largest damage this event allowed was eight years of decay to our economy while we chased ghost is the sands of a desert. I dare say because of the gun lobby we have more to fear on this side of the ocean with the home made nut than the imported ones from across the ocean.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
8:59 am
LOOK! AT all the new ones!
Welcome to the Occupation
January 17th, 2013
8:59 am
Nobama: “Let me be blunt : Bite me Jay”
Probably one of the better indicators you could look for that the argument has cleanly hit its intended target.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
8:59 am
stands – if Obama had addressed all my pet peeves with the Left, it would have been a mini-series.
bubba
January 17th, 2013
9:00 am
Jay, do you actually read the opinion or do you make this stuff up as you go along? I bet that you didnt bother to read the opinion, and instead, got it from someone else. Before you spout off, please learn the difference between a Court’s HOLDING and DICTA. One has the force of law and one does not.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:00 am
BW
Thank you for publishing this Jay! My goodness are some of you people insane? There will never again be the conditions that were in 1776….stop pretending that you wouldn’t be crushed in an armed rebellion…and something tells me that such people wouldn’t just turn on the feds….I get the distinct feeling that some “qualms” with certain civilians would be settled as well
What you fruits on the left must realize is that sooner or later this country will be broke. And when we are broke entitlements will abruptly end. And what happened in Greece will be a hundred times over here because of the enormous population of slackers that the gubmint already props up. You’ll certainly need a gun then so when the leeches start breaking down you door to get your stuff don’t come a running to us gun owners to protect you…..
Jay
January 17th, 2013
9:00 am
I think the example of James Yeager of Tennessee is all too typical. A couple of weeks ago, the self-styled tactical gun expert posted a Youtube video in which he volunteered to fire the first shot in the looming civil war and bragged in no uncertain terms that “if this goes one inch further I’m going to start killing people.” (profanity-filled video available at http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-obamas-gun-control/)
The state of Tennessee then yanked his concealed carry permit, which is considerably more than one inch further, and the brave Mr. Yeager suddenly turned meek and mild and all apologetic. See _embedded&v=wD5kuOMIVts
Giving nuts like this encouragement to think of themselves as our first-line bastion against tyranny is dangerous and foolhardy.
Gale
January 17th, 2013
9:00 am
Video games do not cause violent behavior in society. That is a complete red herring. Do you have any idea of how many thousands of people play “shooter” games? I think the CDC already did a study on this. The problem is a macho culture that leads some *men* to think they are more manly with a mean looking gun. This is a culture problem not connected to movies and games.
Locked and Loaded
January 17th, 2013
9:01 am
Here’s something you can think about, suppose that Obama continues on his tyranical ways. Do you think that the military or law enforcement would follow his orders to disarm the American people? Remember that most law enforcement are veterans. All military and law enforcement take an oath to uphold and protect the constitution. They would be within their rights to refuse to disarm the population. Think about it who in their right mind would go around knocking on doors demanding they surrender their weapons. It would not turn out well.
nelson
January 17th, 2013
9:01 am
Treason is a term used in time of war. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of espionage for spying for the Soviet Union,but was not during a war with that country so it was not treason. I would see the context alluded to in the story above, would be revolution or insurrection.
Whatever
January 17th, 2013
9:02 am
Aquagirl,
Many are willing to be crushed to have a chance at freedom. I respect them better than those that live in chains because they fear.
We wouldn’t be here today if our founders had your attitude.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:02 am
Jay, want to do something today that will make a real difference for improvement?
Tell your AJC fathers they have succeeded in loading down the website to the point that it is no longer a pleasure to use.
It all started with the Mebo bar. It stops navigation until loaded. It has to go. It sucks.
Jed Eckardt
January 17th, 2013
9:03 am
Cherokee….If you want a no-gun society, I would suggest Delta Airlines with a destination of Washington DC, or anywhere in NY state, or Chicago…..Just a few disarmed places for you that just happen to have some of the highest violent crime rates in the country. But go ahead and be a sheep. Lay down and do nothing while criminals rape, burn, and pillage. Be a good American and turn in your guns while you wait for a police response of 10-15 minutes before you can be protected. I think I’ll keep mine, thank you very much. One thing is for certain. Liberals would be an easy group to get rid of in the event of civil war……you have no weapons to defend yourselves with. You’ll turn them all in!
Peadawg
January 17th, 2013
9:03 am
The moment someone brings video games into the equation = the moment the lose the argument.
vinny
January 17th, 2013
9:04 am
The real claptrap came out of the mouth of the liar-in-chief obama yesterday. Flanked by Joe “Shemp” Biden and children who presented letters written by their liberal government school teachers – obama came across as weak and ineffective. The fact that he used children as a shield for his idiotic proposals was a very pathetic display. obama should have been wearing a pink dress.
None of his ideas will curb gun violence, it will only punish law abiding citizens. Why didn’t he propose something that will work like very long prison terms for any type of gun crime? Because it was nothing but a bunch of pathetic, shameless showboating by a little boy that does not have a clue as how to fix a problem, much less lead a country.
Whatever
January 17th, 2013
9:04 am
Jay,
On Yeager……yes, each time an idiot says something stupid/dangerous let’s be sure to limit everyone’s rights. That’s a great way to preserve freedom.
Looney Bin
January 17th, 2013
9:04 am
The NRA is obviously good at manipulating the simple minded….anyone else notice how “elitist” was used in the ad about the President’s daughters yesterday? Who do you think that word was meant to fire up? I pity these people who are so obviously being played for a mark.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:05 am
“Obamas Tyrannical Ways”
tee hee hee
Chad
January 17th, 2013
9:05 am
Couple of questions… how did we get our superior butts kicked in Vietnam? Do you think the Viet Cong had anything close to the superior weaponry that the US possessed in the 60’s and 70’s. No they had small arms a bit of ingenuity. I believe that happened in the last hundred years.
Iraq? and Afghanistan?… not sure we have wielded our superior might to destroy our enemies there either.
I think anyone with a brain can figure out that… but sheep usually are not burdened with an over abundance of brains. Thanks for the laugh Jay!
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:05 am
Liberal buffoon Andrea Mitchell gets put in her place… Imagine this is Bookman and not Mitchell….
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/16/andrea-mitchell-argues-govt-can-infringe-upon-americans-inalienable-rights-hear-pro-gun-advocates-epic-response/
Wilbur
January 17th, 2013
9:05 am
And the Second amendment is not to be disregarded, ignored and submarined because you find it inconvenient. Obama has decided to rule as a tyrant through executive order and his loyal followers will allow him to do what ever he pleases.
Never has a politician been followed for so long with such miserable performance in office. If Obama required every American to have sex with a goat, Jay Bookman would find a reason to support the plan. It’s funny and scary at the same time.
Steve
January 17th, 2013
9:06 am
I love how sensible gun control measures equates to “taking away all of our guns” via uneducated, paranoid people (who probably would fly Confederate flags in their yards if it wasn’t such a negative stigma).
independent thinker
January 17th, 2013
9:06 am
Federal government tyrranny:
In 2007 the ATF was able to trace over 6,600 guns seized in crimes to Georgia.
Luckily since then the NRA and its patriots in Congress made it nearly impossible for the ATF to trace gun sales with mandatory destruction of background checks after 48 hours, no digital recording of gun sales etc.
That is how you maintain a well regulated militia for the security of the free state of Georgia.
Keep arming that Georgia militia to rise up against the Black communist from Kenya in the White House !
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
9:06 am
Jed Eckardt – “One thing is for certain. Liberals would be an easy group to get rid of in the event of civil war……you have no weapons to defend yourselves with. You’ll turn them all in!”
Tell ya what Jed, let’s make a little wager. I’ll be you an even $10,000 that over the course of the next 4 years, there will be no mandate to either turn in your guns, or that armed patrols of Obamas Secret Army will arrive at your door and demand your weapons. You in?
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:07 am
Take my Guns
Turn in my guns
Lay down and be raped
Crushed for freedom
tee hee hee
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:07 am
I respect them better than those that live in chains because they fear.
I respect people with the discernment to reject obviously fake dumb quotes. Guess who that rules out?
Our country wouldn’t be here if our founders were not smart, like Ben Franklin. He went to France to secure support instead of waving his musket balls around like they were the scariest thing EVAH for the Brits.
Whatever
January 17th, 2013
9:08 am
Independent,
I don’t care who is in the White House. I have felt this way my entire life when all the presidents were just a pasty white.
Keep throwing the race card around though. Makes you look intelligent.
Jim
January 17th, 2013
9:08 am
Here is where you catch yourself and Scalia catches himself. If Saddam Hussien didn’t take automatic weapons from his people because it was erroneous to the situation then why is the US govt doing it? It should be a non factor here just like in Iraq due to the fact that if there is an uprising then military will stomp it’s own people like a bug. Learn how to write with truth and facts that don’t contradict themselves. The US Citizens are free to own what they want. Just because a firearm is tactical doesn’t mean it is wrong to own it. These are primarily used in target practice and competitions and for home defense. The .223 is not a man slayer as the false statements from the fear mongering media reports. It is .001 inches bigger than a .22. Really???? A man slayer???? C’mon man, get your facts straight.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
9:09 am
JohnnyReb is about as brave as that TN gun nut. As soon as you start asking questions about his “2d amendment remedies” he bravely runs away.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:10 am
It all started with the Mebo bar. It stops navigation until loaded. It has to go. It sucks.
The Meebo bar goes away if you click on the arrows at the far right.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:12 am
Its really sad that Oblama and his dem cohorts want to ban guns and are even talking confiscation….
Steve
January 17th, 2013
9:12 am
No, JohnnyReb, polls show that even NRA members want more gun control.
My cousin’s fiance in Canada is a hunter and owns guns. But he appreciates the strict gun control measures there, as it provides for a safer culture. The 2nd Amendment was obviously related to militias and slavery and a time before electricity for crying out loud. A time when people lived very simply, and weapons were simple.
Pigkiller
January 17th, 2013
9:13 am
Concerning the reason for the ratification of the second amendment, stands for decibels has linked to an opinion for this. I would suggest that everyone read the book(s) The Debate on the Constitution. (unless, of course, you attended the Atlanta Public Schools) This juxtaposes the papers and columns written by both the Federalists and Anti Federalists. Mason, and many other Antis, were worried about not having a bill of rights included in the constitution, not just the concept of militias. They were worried as well that a standing army, controlled by the. executive, could at any time remove rights granted by this constitution. Hence, the second amendment is in place to ensure that our other rights are protected. Concerning Mr. Bookman’s article, it seems that he would like to pick and choose the rights that are of his liking, and ignore those that do not suit him. Those he deems out of touch with today’s thought, technology, etc. should be eliminated. This is how it starts.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:13 am
JohnnyReb
To think the NRA is manipulating people is ridiculous. The NRA is carrying the message from the people forward
.
.
.
.
Then why is it not promoting those things its members support?
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/15/1341181/the-5-sensible-gun-safety-regulations-that-even-nra-members-support/
Welcome to the Occupation
January 17th, 2013
9:13 am
bubba: ” Before you spout off, please learn the difference between a Court’s HOLDING and DICTA. One has the force of law and one does not.”
Because of course they (and their staffs) expend all kinds of their precious time expounding on things that have no force and in fact don’t express how they actually view issues at all. It’s meant to just be ignored and disregarded and so much empty verbiage.
Try wrapping your big thick arms around a clue, bubba.
Whatever
January 17th, 2013
9:13 am
Aqua,
On the fake quote…. I did not know it was fake until this morning. I did not intentionally try to mislead anyone. I apologize for using it but it was an honest mistake.
That still doesn’t change the fact that there are 100s of quotes from the founding fathers insisting the 2nd Amendment was an important right to maintain our freedoms.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:14 am
Na, Na Water Girl – the Meebo bar just hides. It’ still loaded, still scewing up the works. A program that actually shuts down won’t pop back up instantly with one click, it has to load.
BW
January 17th, 2013
9:14 am
Christian Conservative
No one here is arguing about protection of the home. Hell…I’m not even arguing on any gun control aspect….my point is that we have no chance against a modern military force in quest to “take our country back”. The people who are talking about King Obama, stripping Constitutional rights and the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants from time to time, need to wake up. War is hell and I feel as though there is this illusion that it wouldn’t be. Do you really think if you were plotting armed rebellion the feds wouldn’t know before it was time to enact the plot? After the Patriot Act was passed, the possibility of that is nil to none. Rebellions take money and weapons….things that the feds that the feds are fairly decent at tracking in the quantities needed. Too much flapping of the gums and not enough common sense in the populace….just my opinion.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:14 am
Sadder still….bearing false witness.
Don’t you Christians agree?
Steve
January 17th, 2013
9:15 am
PigKiller – do you, as a citizen with some rifles and guns, have the ability to stop our government now, when we have enough nuclear weapons to bomb the world 10 times over?
J.B. Stoner
January 17th, 2013
9:15 am
Over 50% of the gun murders committed in the U.S. annually are committed by less than 6% of the population. That’s right, afro-american males. Stop their aggressive behavior and you put a real dent in gun violence rather than restricting law abiding Americans.
BLK09GT
January 17th, 2013
9:15 am
Banderson @ 8:50 AM What’s the big deal? Simple, by advertising to criminals the locations of gun owners, they can be selective in the “soft” targets that they hit. The local police force has put out a statement basically saying you are giving criminals a road map as to houses they can freely burglarize. Its what liberals like to refer to as “gun free zones” where the evil of our world so love to attack.
As to the article, its simple. What part of the word “infringe” do you guys not understand?
Steve
January 17th, 2013
9:16 am
And let the racists posts begin…
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:16 am
Good Fight – where did I run. I must have missed it. Just because I choose not address your ridiculous scenario does not mean I ran. I replied to your post. Others saw it – the one where I accussed Obama of being a tyrant.
Steve
January 17th, 2013
9:16 am
My question to you so called Christians – was Jesus pro gun? I seem to remember that whole ‘turn the other cheek’ thing.
Melanie
January 17th, 2013
9:16 am
No one wants to take away the guns that you need to defend yourself. But the NRA and the gun lobby hype that fear to increase donations and gun sales. And boy, has it worked. Nothing like the blood of 26 innocent people and the hope of rational efforts to the address the issue of mad men in public places with weapontry that lets them kill so many so quickly. The last two months have probably been the most profitable for the NRA and the gun manufactures and dealers for years. Cha-ching!
JF McNamara
January 17th, 2013
9:18 am
Wolverine!
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:18 am
Newtown changed everything.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:19 am
J B Stoner – now there’s a name not heard in a while. And, most of the youngsters here will have to look it up. JB’s crystal ball was correct in many ways, but he was hopelessly lost morally and other ways also.
And, there is a problem in the black community with violence, which they don’t want to keep at the forefront, but the mass shootings are almost always white boys.
Soothsayer
January 17th, 2013
9:19 am
Well, like I said yesterday, a thread having to do with guns and/or the NRA really brings the nutcases out of the woodwork. I hate to tell you this, nutcases, but Jay’s blog is really the government in disguise getting you to reveal yourselves. You’re going into a database of gun-totin’ nutcases! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Can somebody tell me where I can find a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread?
Bob
January 17th, 2013
9:19 am
The holding of public office is not license for treason, either. Not even a high one. Treason is a crime against the people, not defiance of unlawful orders by public officials who disregard the law.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:20 am
The .223 is not a man slayer as the false statements from the fear mongering media reports. It is .001 inches bigger than a .22.
Jim we recently had a dispute about why a liberal blog would post a pic of a .223 next to a .22. This is why.
Thanks for proving there are fact-fudging gun nuts deliberately trying to mislead people. Next time one of the NRA drones starts claiming oh noes I’ll link to your post. They can put that in their manly gun and smoke it.
Jm
January 17th, 2013
9:20 am
Obama is doing a stand up job with the Islamists
They’ve controlled Mali for the last 8 months and are now taking over Algeria
Obama’s response is: you can have Afghanistan back, please
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:20 am
Steve
My question to you so called Christians – was Jesus pro gun? I seem to remember that whole ‘turn the other cheek’ thing.
He was certainly pro defending the word of GOD….. And would certainly be pro defending our GOD given rights as American citizens… Ponder on that for awhile…..
BLK09GT
January 17th, 2013
9:21 am
One other aspect of this article that is not discussed, in a worse case scenario, how many military and police personnel are actually willing to confiscate weapons/fire on American citizens? This argument that they have greater firepower is correct. However, you want to bring up Afghanistan? Look at what some locals with small arms living in caves were able to do against our military. They put up a heck of fight didn’t they? Back to the police, my local sheriff along with many across the country have come out and stated they would not obey any unconstitutional laws passed. There are many in our military, I would even say majority that support the second amendment. It wouldn’t be as lopsided as you have stated here.
ATL Tiger
January 17th, 2013
9:22 am
The Second Amendment does allow for a militia but more importantly, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
vinny
January 17th, 2013
9:22 am
Steve,
My old man’s a t.v. repairman, and he has this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.
Spicoli.
joe
January 17th, 2013
9:22 am
Of course one gun owner can’t do anything to curtail the government with their armies…but that same one gun owner, aligned with 300 million other gun owners can certainly dictate what the government can or can’t do…so bookman’s point falls flat on his ugly face. Keep it up loony libs…you know your views are wrong.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
9:23 am
Now the cons have confessed to us that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and Korea were all doomed because of their well-armed militias.
You cons are truly entertaining when all you can shoot off are your mouthes.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:23 am
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:20 am
Steve
My question to you so called Christians – was Jesus pro gun? I seem to remember that whole ‘turn the other cheek’ thing.
He was certainly pro defending the word of GOD….. And would certainly be pro defending our GOD given rights as American citizens… Ponder on that for awhile…..
.
.
.
.
Yep, he was packing all the time he was being scourged.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
9:23 am
“The .223 is not a man slayer as the false statements from the fear mongering media reports. It is .001 inches bigger than a .22. Really???? A man slayer???? C’mon man, get your facts straight.”
Yes indeed. Let’s get our facts straight. Let’s begin with your absurd comparison between a .22 round and a .223 round, which demonstrates that you are either a willful liar or incompetent around firearms.
A .223 round is fired with three times the muzzle velocity of a .22 long-rifle round. Basic physics known since the time of Isaac Newton tells us that force = mass X velocity, which means the .223 round packs at least three times the punch of a .22.
So again, let’s get the facts right shall we?
NoJohnLocke
January 17th, 2013
9:24 am
The revolutions of modern day happen when the people of a country (even those, especially those in the military) fail to be represented by their government. See: Arab Spring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring.
At this point, the majority still feel represented, even if it isn’t.
Modern interpretations (by supreme court justices) of the 2nd see it protecting firearms for self defense, recreation, provision… see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The court then held that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms”, saying that the right was “premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, “the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” The court determined that handguns are “Arms” and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
Now stop marginalizing people. The crazies will call themselves out, you don’t need to go out of your way to find them.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:25 am
Brendan O’Brien
“If anything the fact that the people of this country couldn’t stop a systematic genocide if it came to that, is an argument for better arming and better balancing the power against the people so that the government will only rule when it has the consent of the people.:
What part of Justice Scalia’s majority opinion “Scalia brushed aside claims that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the means to armed revolution” do you not understand?
Christian Conservative
“What exactly is the point of an assault ban Jay? Why do you and your dem friends want to take guns from people?”
Why don’t you address that in a letter to Justice Scalia? Ask him why “the government is fully within its rights to ban military-style weaponry.”
He is the source, after all –
“Scalia stuns Identity Conservatives: says guns can be regulated”
“… there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned some weapons. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried. –They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/scalia-stuns-identity-conservatives-says-guns-can-be-regulated
GT
January 17th, 2013
9:25 am
Your online spell checker
What we have here ,that is so encouraging, is a cultural change coming about in this country. It may not be the instant cure this modern world demands but like smoking in the generation before it starts to put a negative light on the foolery of being macho as oppose to developing the health and mind of the body. For some reason the right has been lead to believe a physical presence trumps mental and moral strength in a country.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:27 am
http://www.downvids.net/you-must-see-this-testimony-then-share-share-share–332398.html
Pigkiller
January 17th, 2013
9:27 am
Steve, not the point. We could get into a what if discussion as to whether or not the armed forces would as a whole or in part attack its own populace, but we would be off track. The real issue is which omnipotent being (hopefully not Bookman) is to decide which of the rights in the bill of rights the unwashed masses are allowed to have. And by the way, there are some things worth dying for.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
9:27 am
All Jesus had was a bag of nails (he was a carpenter, wasn’t he) and a slingshot back in the day. He was known to sing while walking about, this timeless classic.
Lord Help Us
January 17th, 2013
9:27 am
‘which demonstrates that you are either a willful liar or incompetent around firearms.’
I posit it could be both…
Bob
January 17th, 2013
9:28 am
Steve–”Turn the other cheek” is about enduring personal insults, not sitting idly by while someone massacres innocent children. Jesus advised his disciples to carry swords.
Now, I wouldn’t “claim” Him for a political debate, per se, but both Jewish and Christian theologians have long agreed that the negative prohibition against murder carries with it a positive duty to protect and preserve innocent human life from the murderous, reckless (and even the “merely” negligent), and that duty brings with it a right to defend self and third parties, which right carries with it the right to the means conducive thereto, namely, equal or superior weaponry.
Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and that anyone teaching others to ignore it would be least in the Kingdom of Heaven. By doing so, He affirms all the law of God, including the duty to preserve life just described.
You may not agree, but that has been the historic orthodox Christian position. Are there divergent positions? Sure, to varying degrees. But this has been the solid consensus on this issue (use of force in defense of life and property) throughout the history of the church. Hope that helps.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:28 am
Na, Na Water Girl – the Meebo bar just hides.
Yeah, it’s apparently helped some folks so I thought I’d mention it. Hiding meebo is some small measure of retaliation so there’s that.
jtmcnsltng
January 17th, 2013
9:28 am
RE: Meebo – You can block anything from that site loading by adjusting you privacy / security settings.
In IE (gasp!), it is in the tools / intenet options / security tab / restricted sites. Just block anything from http://*.meebo.com
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:29 am
There are many fine examples posted this morning as to why so many fear mental health checks as a prerequisite to gun ownership.
Donovan
January 17th, 2013
9:29 am
Enough with the second amendment discussion and confiscation of assault weapons and magazines.
Take your emotional liberal fight to mental health experts and Hollywood. Mass murderers are typically the nut cases that slip through the cracks or the ones who watch too many action hero movies.
Why aren’t you more concerned about confiscating cars and alcohol that kill more people each and every year? Could it be that liberals have a thing about controlling guns (now retermed as “controlling gun violence), controlling the military, and controlling the voting public?
By the way, libs…nice touch with the children props yesterday.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:29 am
I’m not the gun nut some here believe, but I do know Jay is correct on the .223. It’s all about the velocity.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 17th, 2013
9:30 am
JohnnyReb: “If you are concerned of propaganda, you should concentrate on the collusion of the White House and legacy media.”
Ah, so it’s not a “liberal” media any more? Oh, tiny inch of progress! if these people are at long last forced to concede that there is nothing “liberal” about the media.
“The NRA is a vehicle to help protect rights dear to conservatives. Just like the Democratic Party is a vehicle for a coalition of special interest groups.
To think the NRA is manipulating people is ridiculous. The NRA is carrying the message from the people forward.”
Hiliarious non sequitur! The party that represents the biggest “special interest” outfit known to man, the National child slaughter R’us Association (NRA), is not a party of special interests. I love it! Keep ‘em coming, JohnnyReb, you’re on a roll bub.
ramblingbuzz
January 17th, 2013
9:30 am
Hey Cons,
Don’t let the facts get in your way re: tyranny by Executive Order:
Obama – 144 EOs
Bush – 291 EOs
Clinton – 364 EOs
Source:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
I call BS on your foolish, bigoted propaganda.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
9:30 am
Uh Oh! Jay has done increased the momentum against the massive arguments presented to date by the cons through the use of science. Jay knows they have no defense since cons don’t do math or science. Well played, Jay.
Pissed Off Redneck Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:30 am
This arguement is absurd…No sane person would care if restricting weapons was the answer. People aren’t pissed off about guns being limited, as much as they are in the fashion it has been handeled. There is no statistic or logical reasoning behind banning guns and the people who have suggested these bills do not have enough weapons experience to suggest they should be banned. Not only that, but even if you lean to the left or right are you not pissed about the backroom politics that have plauged New York the last 5 days?
Assuming everyone posting here is also a taxpaying American citizen, it is your tax dollars that allow the government to pay to have these weapons developed. Why shouldn’t you have access to them?
At the end of the day anyone who owns a firearm buys it for protection, wether they believe the government will eventually strip them of there rights or if. They believe a petty criminal decides to put a 9mm to their head while walking out of a gas station. There’s no reason to take guns away from mentally stable law abiding citizens. Starting an arms race with the people of America and creating a war on guns is assanine. I believe we tried doing this with drugs about 40 years ago and tell me, how hard is it to find weed?
ATL Tiger
January 17th, 2013
9:31 am
“Yes indeed. Let’s get our facts straight. Let’s begin with your absurd comparison between a .22 round and a .223 round, which demonstrates that you are either a willful liar or incompetent around firearms.
A .223 round is fired with three times the muzzle velocity of a .22 long-rifle round. Basic physics known since the time of Isaac Newton tells us that force = mass X velocity, which means the .223 round packs at least three times the punch of a .22.
So again, let’s get the facts right shall we?”
Yeah, and let the facts show that 50% of all murders in the US come from handguns (.22, .38. .357, 9mm, .40, .45), while rifles account for 2.6% of all murders. It is clear that the .223 packs more punch than a .22, but more murders are committed with a .22
Conculsion, ‘assault rifles’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ do no account for a signicant amount of murders in the US.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
9:31 am
Let me also deal with the earlier poster who cited successful 20th century revolts in Cuba, China and Russia as somehow negating my theory. To the contrary, those examples bolster it.
The communist dictatorship in Russia was overthrown with no shots being fired between the Soviet military and its citizens. People ended that tyranny, not guns.
Fidel Castro overthrew the Cuban government not with handguns and shotguns in the hands of Cuban farmers and workers, but with top-of-the-line military weaponry supplied by the Soviet Union. The notion that Mao’s Red Army was armed with sidearms kept by the Chinese peasantry is even more bizarre, because the peasants had no such arms. Again, it was heavy arms supplied by the Soviet Union, including tanks, as well as military weaponry recovered from the recently defeated Japanese forces in the area.
Scott
January 17th, 2013
9:31 am
“no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”
Tell that to the Viet Cong – Pushed US out of Vietnam
Tell that to the Somalis in 1993 – pushed US out of Mogadishu
Tell that to the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan during the 80’s – pushed the Soviets out of Afghanistan
Tell that to the taliban in Afghanistan – withstood the US after 10 years of pressure
History shows that great military powers can be successfully opposed with asysmetrical warfare.
The 2nd Amendment can and does represent a free peoples right to resist tyranny.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:31 am
jtmcnsltng – re, Meebo. I tried your suggestion when Meebo first appeared. It doesn’t work. It will keep it from displaying, no double hash for on/off, but it still loads and runs. The AJC guy I talked to agreed with me as he suffered through my rants.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
9:32 am
Video games do not cause violent behavior in society. That is a complete red herring.
Gale, I’m going to have to take polite issue with you again.
I am inclined to agree that violent entertainment is likely a symptom, not a cause, of nasty behavior. However, the opposite possibility is a very long-running concern among not-stupid people. There’s no definitive answer available to us yet, and perhaps there never will be. However, using the CDC and other government statistical resources to give us a higher-probability take, I think, would be a responsible thing to do.
I AGREE that some who bring this up, ARE just tossing a red herring out there. But that doesn’t mean the issue shouldn’t be addressed, rationally.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:32 am
“Its really sad that Oblama and his dem cohorts want to ban guns and are even talking confiscation….”
Christian Conservative, are you trying to take the “trolling while wearing the ’saying stupid stuff’ crown that Harry Callahan once wore?
Okay…. show us the citation…..
Brosephus™
January 17th, 2013
9:32 am
Do you think that the military or law enforcement would follow his orders to disarm the American people? Remember that most law enforcement are veterans. All military and law enforcement take an oath to uphold and protect the constitution. They would be within their rights to refuse to disarm the population.
If the population picks those arms up in rebellion against the Country, the military and law enforcement would be derelict in their duties if they did not disarm the people. Protecting the Constitution comes first and foremost. If you doubt that, ask Al Walki what happens when you rebel and become an enemy of the Constitution. Your US citizenship is not an automatic “get out of jail free” card if you screw around and cross over into that “enemy” role.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:32 am
Granny Godzilla:
Yep, he was packing all the time he was being scourged.
Its really sad how clueless some people are about Jesus. He died for our sins…
Paul:
Last I checked Scalia is not against assault rifles…. You fruits can take him out of context all you want… He’s for specific military style weapons like grenade’s, Uzi’s, and rocket launchers..
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
9:33 am
Christian Conservative – “Its really sad that Oblama and his dem cohorts want to ban guns and are even talking confiscation….”
Same offer to you buddy. $10,000 bet that over the next four years no one will force you to turn in your guns or come to your home demanding your weapons. Care to put your money where your paranoia is?
keithb
January 17th, 2013
9:33 am
Try to convince a shark not to eat you, because you are a vegetarian.
jconservative
January 17th, 2013
9:33 am
The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
Everyone should read Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in the Heller case. You can find it at the Supreme Court website, click on Opinions and go to Docket # 07-290. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller. This opinion is ready made to be the basis for any legislation relating to gun ownership and use.
The key finding by the Court….”Held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Together, these two cases take the issue of an individual’s right to bear arms off the table. That issue is no longer under discussion.
The case of McDonald v. Chicago applied the findings in Heller to states, counties and cities. That is Docket # 08-1521 with the majority opinion written by Justice Alito.
Williebkind
January 17th, 2013
9:33 am
“That is mythological claptrap. But like a lot of mythological claptrap, it can push weak-minded people — the Timothy McVeighs of the world — to do stupid and dangerous things.”
Unless we remember history we will repeat it. No, it is you who do stupid and dangerous things by not understanding the intentions of our forefathers. Our forefathers had the best military weapons available to them at that time and yes the citizens kept them in their homes or property. Yes governments are taken over by liberal/communists like Linnen, Marx, and many more self declared democratic fighters for the people. You can not read the constitution for what it is so you want to make what you want it to be. Define Arms and come up with just a shotgun and a hunting rifle! Show me you understanding of the English language as used by the writers of the constitution.
You want to disarm America! You can not do it all at once so you chip at it constantly. This time you are using a trajedy to gain sympathy from the public to create SYMPATHY LAWS or now should I say SYMPATHY EXECUTIVE ORDERS. Once again–define ARMS!
larry
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
I support the NRA!!
I do too!!
The National Refrigeration Association appreciates your support !!
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
Jay
January 17th, 2013
8:43 am
Afghanistan? Yes, let’s talk Afghanistan.
With all the guns in private hands there, how “free” are its people?
How was freedom and liberty faring under the Taliban dictatorship before we arrived? Did all those guns allow the Afghans to employ “Second Amendment remedies” and overthrow the viciously repressive Taliban? No, not even close. The Taliban had a death grip on most of the country.
So yes, let’s throw Afghanistan into the argument.
Yes…let’s compare a country under strict Islamic Rule to our country. That’s good Jay….real good.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
Christian Conservative
If you mean assault weapons, you could be more specific. That was worded the way it was because you’re implying the same ‘all guns’ meme others have been using. If you want to differentiate yourself from them, you know how to do it.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
The .223 is not a man slayer as the false statements from the fear mongering media reports. It is .001 inches bigger than a .22.
There are no words.
Only face palms.
Peadawg
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
“I seem to remember that whole ‘turn the other cheek’ thing.”
I’m not going to “turn the other cheek” when my family is in danger and someone is breaking into our house.
Sagegirl
January 17th, 2013
9:34 am
“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”
-Citizen
With guns
Liberty for all
January 17th, 2013
9:35 am
The second Ammedment was in-fact created to protect the citizens from a tyrannical Gov’t Jay. “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. -The U.S. Constitution
It’s always comical to watch delusional liberal wing-nuts come out of the woodwork to demonize people, and facts they disagree with. The best part is reading the hilariously mis-informed comments by the far-leftists a.ka. the un-glued, irrational, emotional crowd. Like clock-work, imaginary characterizations of people they don’t relate well with find their way into their responses.
Try to remember, being dimwitted and dopey isn’t an excuse for being wrong.
Lord Help Us
January 17th, 2013
9:35 am
‘The AJC guy I talked to agreed with me as he suffered through my rants.’
I feeeel his pain…
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:35 am
So that Good Fight does not think I tucked tail and ran – goodbye for now, some of us really do have to work.
Plus, all this is academic as far as banning the tactical rifles again – its not going to happen. Obama knows it, you know it.
The real issue is the executive orders. Obama is not king. Legislation is suppose to come from Congress.
Georgia
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
I was going to comment but before I did I read all the comments above so I wont comment because all the cliches have been expressed. The discussion is where it as when Jay posted the piece. This is a direct result of the commenting by AJC stooges from his office. They don’t want the discussion advanced or resolved because then there’d be no reason to blog, and all those pop up goat porn ads would go unclicked. Shame on capitalism, journalism, and plagiarism, but then I repeat myself.
larry
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
You want to disarm America! You can not do it all at once so you chip at it constantly.
Disarming me?
Wouldnt that hurt? I mean pulling my arms out of my shoulder sockets , thats really painful.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
JohnnyReb: Just because I choose not address your ridiculous scenario does not mean I ran
Well then brave Sir JohnnyReb…. explain what is the “ridiculous scenario”. YOU stated Obama is committing tyranny. You also assert that YOU have a remedy under the 2d Amendment when there is tyranny. Since YOU have determined there is TYRANNY, what remedies to you NOW have under the 2d Amendment? You can hide behind a broad brush of constitution waiving telling us how you will bravely use a gun to defend against tyranny but you won’t articulate your remedies? You now claim that the 2d Amendment has some sort of “defensive” component?
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
tell that to the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan during the 80’s – pushed the Soviets out of Afghanistan
Yes, after WE armed them with weapons that could take on Soviet tanks and helicopter gunships.
Why are gun advocates so crummy at history? Is this like the .223 vs. .22 thing, or is it just plain ignorance they think a few rebels with small arms overturn governments?
roughrider
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
It seems that the rebels in Syria are doing fairly well against planes, tanks etc.Also the Taliban in Afghanistan does well against the government forces.
jtmcnsltng
January 17th, 2013
9:36 am
RE:RE: Meebo – Not sure why it is not working for you. I have not tried blocking it on other browsers yet. Perhaps you could filter at the Windows Firewall level, or at your router level. Same concept, just different ways to do it.
Google is very helpful in finding creative ways to bend the internet to your will.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:37 am
Butch Cassidy (I):
Ok I’ll take that bet if you make the same bet that Republicans are no trying to outlaw abortion as was spewed so much before the election….. All I heard was Republicans trying to infringe on a woman’s right to kill her baby… No its the other way around. dems trying to infringe on the right to bear arms…
http://youtu.be/FsQl6wWuRCc
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
9:37 am
These Uncle Sam hating, enraged gun nuts wondering around in perpetual fear of everything and everyone are all hat and no cattle.
You better run
‘Cause I’m young, dumb and I’ve got a gun
Public idiot number one
‘Cause I’m young, dumb and I’ve got a gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8INrv5dgNI
Georgia
January 17th, 2013
9:37 am
And I am sick and tired of fending off all those malicious cookies. Give it a rest, Jay. Gads. Have you no sense of journalistic integrity at long last?
too little time
January 17th, 2013
9:37 am
According to some, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that citizens have enough firepower to overthrow the federal government, should it become necessary to do so. If the government ever loses its fear of such a revolt, the theory goes, our liberty ends and tyranny begins.
Let me be blunt: That is mythological claptrap.
Not quite mythological claptrap, but almost. Let ME be blunt: EVERY government that ever existed on the face of the earth has become a corrupt cesspool that has collapsed… every one. And every single government suppressed it’s people until they could no longer take it, and revolted.
So while you declare it mythological claptrap, Jay, history is stacked against you.
I could go further: EVERY “paper” currency that ever existed failed… for the reasons that we have a 16 trillion debt and absolutely no will in government to control spending. EVERY paper currency has failed… 100%. People who say “deficits don’t matter” (both Democrats and Republicans) have obviously not noted that small footnote in the history of failed currencies.
Sorry to beat you over the head with facts, Jay, but those are the facts. They are not pretty. Our founding fathers knew that it was true then, and it would be true in the future. They planned for it. They wrote the 2nd amendment. Deal with it.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
Christian Conservative
“Liberal buffoon Andrea Mitchell gets put in her place… Imagine this is Bookman and not Mitchel”
Eric Pratt, of Gun Owners for America, chose to mislead by pretending Justice Scalia’s majority opinion didn’t exist.
Wilbur
“And the Second amendment is not to be disregarded, ignored and submarined because you find it inconvenient. Obama has decided to rule as a tyrant through executive order and his loyal followers will allow him to do what ever he pleases”
You have examples of HOW the 2nd Amendment’s been disregarded? Something other than your unsupported opinion?
LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB LIB
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
Had the founding fathers the ability to see into the future, the 2nd Ammendment would never have seen the light of day. Any reasonable thinker would agree that repeal is the correct path.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
The real issue is Reb’s laughable ignorance surrounding executive orders.
As proven by myself and ramblingbuzz.
But Reb is so damn fact-averse he just shrugs off what he doesn’t want to know.
i.e., the perfect con…
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:32 am
Granny Godzilla:
Yep, he was packing all the time he was being scourged.
Its really sad how clueless some people are about Jesus. He died for our sins…
.
.
.
.
I’m guessing your praying hard all the time for him to return, as in your case it didn’t work.
Shaw Staff
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
Liberals should rid themselves of the crazy freedom lovers and form their own country. Secession is the answer! In fact yall can keep your god, barack obama and the freak show that comes with him. Just don’t forget to enjoy the unicorns in utopiaville.
Williebkind
January 17th, 2013
9:39 am
“All military and law enforcement take an oath to uphold and protect the constitution.”
The annointed one took an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land. How is doing so far on that one. I grade him a complete failure.
Georgia
January 17th, 2013
9:40 am
The historical inaccuracies come entirely from the AJC confederates who are just trying to stir the pot. The trick is to post as much stupidity as you can and see who’s dumb enough to swing at it, and then target that IP address with all the malicious cookies. And I for one think it stinks. The comments are not coming from actual beliefs, but from a commercial conspiracy of Jay and his editors and their paid stooges on this blog.
larry
January 17th, 2013
9:41 am
Let ME be blunt: EVERY government that ever existed on the face of the earth has become a corrupt cesspool that has collapsed… every one.
Well, that doesnt bode well for the state of Georgia .
Williebkind
January 17th, 2013
9:41 am
“Had the founding fathers the ability to see into the future, the 2nd Ammendment would never have seen the light of day. Any reasonable thinker would agree that repeal is the correct path.”
They did see the future from history but you are not a reasonable thinker and would never get it.
IdiotsonParade
January 17th, 2013
9:42 am
Macho? Lets trade in objects and actions deemed to promote “macho” in favor of things which promote health and mind? I’m curious how you’re able to contribute from your Tibetan Temple. Actually, I have a feeling you are pro-marijuana at this very second.
JohnnyReb
January 17th, 2013
9:42 am
JamVet – if it was W issuing 19 EO’s at once you would be screaming to high heaven. You know it, I know it, so stop the BS.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:42 am
Paul:
If you mean assault weapons, you could be more specific. That was worded the way it was because you’re implying the same ‘all guns’ meme others have been using. If you want to differentiate yourself from them, you know how to do it.
You could be more specific sport. Scalia has never stated there should be an assault weapons ban. Or Magazine ban for that matter. Do you honestly think Scalia would come down on infringes one’s right to bear arms. I don’t think so. Thats why your opinion along with you alter ego Jay is worthless and baseless… Scalia will rule for the people as he always does. Not for the gubmint….
Shine
January 17th, 2013
9:42 am
Those pesky founders…
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Suzanne Chupp
January 17th, 2013
9:42 am
While Scalia is quoted as saying that assault weapons could be restricted, bear in mind that this is his opinion. The 2nd amendment is very clear. This right “shall not be enfringed”… Regardless of of the time this was written, even the Declaration of Independence makes it very clear that when a government becomes tyrannical, it is the duty of the citizenry to revolt.
This modern government believes that the Constitution is a document that was designed to be in constant metamorphasis which couldn’t be further from the truth. The federal government had explicit limits put on them for the purpose of keeping a central government from becoming too far reaching into our personal lives and limiting our rights. We the people should be very clear that this government has overstepped its constitutional bounds.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
“My question to you so called Christians – was Jesus pro gun? I seem to remember that whole ‘turn the other cheek’ thing.
He was certainly pro defending the word of GOD….. And would certainly be pro defending our GOD given rights as American citizens… Ponder on that for awhile…..”
A picture of Jesus with an assault weapon, bandoliers draped over his chest, firing into a crowd of families who are demonstrating for some heathen purpose comes to mind….
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
Secession is the answer!
Isn’t “states rights” something you new age seccessionists are always spouting off about?
Nope, we libs ain’t going anywhere; we’ll just do the same thing we did last time. Send a few hundred thousand of you traitors to meet your maker…
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
Jay, regarding your “article”. You need to go do some serious reading of U.S history and the concerns of the Founding Fathers on tyranny. I’ve included this link below for an excellent article on how we got the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights. And yes, the primary reason for the Second was to be able to defend the country from enemies both foreign and domestic…and that would include any government…both republican or democrat.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm
I leave you with this interesting quote from Jefferson:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
RB from Gwinnett
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
“Scalia brushed aside claims that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the means to armed revolution.”
Gee, Jay, you make it sound like we’re all “subjects” of our government and are at the mercy of whoever is in the house at 1600 Penn.
Two points you liberals just don’t seem to have the mental capacity to understand. 1) When it comes to a revolution, nobody gives a crap what Scalia, Obama, or any other name in Washington says you can and can’t do, have, whatever. It is those people and their rules you’re tossing out with the bath water. 2) You’re making potentially a fatal mistake by assuming our military will follow the “orders” of those same individuals and fire on their own families with that weaponry you mention. Big mistake.
We have sherriff’s all over this country telling Obama they have no intention of enforcing his executive orders because they deem them to be unconstitutional. If you can’t see the impending problems we’re headed toward when local law enforcement is telling the federal government to eff off, you’re just not thinking through this very clearly. Ask King George how all that turns out.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
What EO will do anything to curtail gun crime libs?
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
9:44 am
Christian Conservative – “Ok I’ll take that bet if you make the same bet that Republicans are no trying to outlaw abortion as was spewed so much before the election”
Okay, I never thought the Republicans were trying to outlaw Abortion. So you’re in on the 10K that no weapons will be required to be turned in and no one will come to your house to take them away? Any other takers?
Georgia
January 17th, 2013
9:45 am
The second amendment was passed during president Burr’s administration. It was signed into law after Burr shot Hamilton clean through the gizard during his first inaugural address when Hamilton jumped up and shouted, “YOU LIE!”. Hamilton needed killin’ for that. (hint)
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
9:45 am
Reb, doubling down on your EO imbecility?
Good job…
wayne
January 17th, 2013
9:45 am
Obama would love to have unarmed citizens, he would never leave office. Look at his power grabs so far, the auto industry, student loans, financial industry, making appointments while the senate was not in recess ect. Leave the guns alone and go back to teaching morals beginning in grade schools. Teach traditional marriage and balanced families. Go back to treating mental illness and let families turn in their children that need help and services. the above is mot o the problems. The entire Democratic party is about controlling the citizenry in any way possible!
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:45 am
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:43 am
What EO will do anything to curtail gun crime libs?
.
.
.
.
Which one will do harm?
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:45 am
Paul:
A picture of Jesus with an assault weapon, bandoliers draped over his chest, firing into a crowd of families who are demonstrating for some heathen purpose comes to mind….
I certainly wouldn’t picture that either you fruit… But I do picture Jesus sitting beside every law abiding citizen and soldier for that matter that could have this on defending themselves…..
keithb
January 17th, 2013
9:46 am
Matthew 13:15
For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’
Jer 17:9-10
9The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?
10“I the Lord search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward a man according to his conduct,
according to what his deeds deserve.”
Roekest
January 17th, 2013
9:46 am
Jay,
I’d like to know how you speak with such authority on the Constitution and American History? Not disagreeing with you, but I’d like to know how a person who can command the attention of the public is able to speak with intellectual knowledge of what he writes. No offense, you’re just a blogger who gets paid by Cox Media. In my opinion, that does not make you a fountain of knowledge; just a man in a very persuasive position.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:46 am
Granny Godzilla:
Just asking a simple question and you loons still can’t answer……
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:47 am
Butch Cassidy (I):
Well if you won’t take my bet I won’t take yours….
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:47 am
Christian Conservative
“Last I checked Scalia is not against assault rifles…. You fruits can take him out of context all you want… He’s for specific military style weapons like grenade’s, Uzi’s, and rocket launchers”
Really?
REALLY?!!?
And you have a citation to back up that statement?
snert -
Chris
January 17th, 2013
9:47 am
That’s funny that you say the American public wouldn’t be able to compete with the military… I’m sure the government thought the same thing about every one-sided war we’ve ever entered. Where there is a will, there is a way. Guerrilla warfare has proven effective against every military giant throughout history. It’s very shortsighted to say us citizens would have no chance. I think you’re selling us short. Don’t forget, if this were to happen, the government wouldn’t be leveling cities with bombs like they do in foreign lands… they would want to preserve everything they could, so in essence many of their typical options would be off of the table on the home front. I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you, or the Supreme Court, make it sound. I believe if semi-automatic assault rifles remained legal, it would be enough fire power, along with guerrilla tactics, to compete with the military on the home front. This is the EXACT reason why semi-automatic assault rifles (as they are today) should remain LEGAL. The only people these gun control laws hurt are the law abiding citizens. I’ll end with this… To say banning assault rifles and making them illegal will make us safer, is like saying nobody in this country can obtain illegal drugs when they look for them. Again, these laws only HURT us. The “bad” guys will always obtain what they need.
1776
January 17th, 2013
9:48 am
The 2nd Amendment provides the citizens the right to defend themselves against a treasonous government (which has trampled the law of the land….the Constitution). It’s not “overthrow” that most NRA & GOA members seek, but protection (to some degree) from an over-reaching, overly empowered, tyrannical “gubmint”. For those who don’t see that there is an (obvious) police state being build, do some research beyond the spoonfed propaganda the “mainstream” media churns out.
http://www.infowars.com/index.php?cat=4
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:48 am
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:46 am
Granny Godzilla:
Just asking a simple question and you loons still can’t answer……
.
.
.
.
Me, too, and YOU loons can’t answer.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
9:48 am
Butch Cassidy (I):
I showed you proof of a dem considering it… You showed me nothing but baseless words…. Are you sure you’re not Jay?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
9:48 am
No other cons want to help out JohnnyReb. He says there is TYRANNY NOW. So what are his constitutional remedies under the 2d amendment. [And please, don't deflect with an argument about his assessment, let's assume for argument, that he believes with all his heart and soul that there is tyranny.]
larry
January 17th, 2013
9:49 am
If you can’t see the impending problems we’re headed toward when local law enforcement is telling the federal government to eff off, you’re just not thinking through this very clearly.
Yeah, my sheriff isnt going to arrest me for my anti-aircraft rifle i have in my back yard or for my M1A1 tank that i have in my driveway.
So, yeah just bring it on……….. huh? But…. 2nd Admendment says………………
Oh, nevermind.
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:49 am
Bookman is assuming that members of our military would attack their own friends and families on American soil. I sincerely doubt they would do that even if ordered to do so by the most divisive little dictator this country has ever had. I have a whole lot more respect for the men and women in uniform than to believe as bookman does, that they would kill their own countrymen and women. This shows just how little regard the left has for our military.
skipper
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
Gun control has worked extremely well in Cesspool, er, Chicago. Maybe we need to let the gangs up there ALL have busmasters, kill each other off, then do something. That probably is absurd (and was meant to be) but in the words of a wise old fellow: “What we doin’ ain’t workin’!” I agree with privacy, but when someone is a pure loonie………(see the Colorodo shooter for one) he has given up his civil rights and access to records. As long as we protect loons using the mantra “their rights” among other stupid stuff, the root of the problem is gonna still be there….control or not.
Michael
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
Let’s now stop with guns. We can stockpile grenades, landmines and bombs in our basements. I am convinced that if we gave Wayne La Of the NRA a psychological test and didnt put his name on it and we read the results that most of us would say this guy doesnt need to own a gun. We are not talking about regulars guns, but assault rifles and only the army, law enforement need such type weapons.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
This modern government believes that the Constitution is a document that was designed to be in constant metamorphasis which couldn’t be further from the truth.
So why is the Constitution fairly vague and short, compared to other governance documents? Did the Founding Fathers run short on ink?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
Holy crap on a cracker!
The crazies have invaded.
Is this somehow link to drudgey?
Scott
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
Aquagirl
I would retort that you are “crummy at history”…the muhajadeen was successfully opposing the Soviets long before the CIA gave them stingers…and they were doing it with rifles from WWI and on horseback. While it is true that once the West started arming them, they were able to successfully counter Soviet airpower and eventually force thier withdrawl. However until that time the Soviets controlled only the major cities. They did not control the entire country by any means.
cloudodust
January 17th, 2013
9:50 am
Back in the 18th century, there weren’t as many crazy folks. Most people stood on their own two feet and practiced a thing called discipline plus the reliance on Big Brother Britain was practiced by those that garnered favor from the Empire or was comfortable with the status quo. Granted, the British fired the first shot in Boston that eventually brought forth the fight for Independence but the Fore-fathers recognized that the gun, not the lip, was the ultimate equalizer when and if a goverment becomes the oppressor.
will-o-the-wisp
January 17th, 2013
9:51 am
armed citizens taking on corrupt governments, ha!! Americans, excel at being a fat, silly people, ignorant barbarous and cruel, especially to those they unleash packs of killers armed with wmd on unarmed peasants– 3-16-1968.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:51 am
Christian Conservative 9:42
“You could be more specific sport. Scalia has never stated ”
I was. I was referring to YOUR post. Not Justice Scalia’s post, ’cause he doesn’t post here.
“Scalia has never stated there should be an assault weapons ban.”
Never said he did, Strawman. Quoted and cited him as saying “… there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned some weapons. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried. –They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne.”
So… care to address what you meant in your post to which I was responding?
SPC
January 17th, 2013
9:51 am
So why have so many guns been sold over the past several years? In my opinion, it’s the result of a slow but steady increase in the distrust of those who govern us.
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:51 am
obama had over half the states suing him over his misguided healthscare plan. Now cops are telling him to take his anti-American ideas and go to hell. I LIKE IT!
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 17th, 2013
9:52 am
Well, seems to me there’s only one thing to do to even things up. They need to change the laws to let us private citizens buy them Stinger missiles and tanks and fighter planes and stuff like that. Otherwise we won’t never be able to overthrow tyranny if the guvmint turns that way.
And this means we’re going to need a little guvmint help us catch up. Maybe some guvmint paid storage buildings and some of them guvmint grants to help us take care of the sky-high prices of some of this stuff. And maybe we need some of them Defense Contractors to work for us and build new weapons the guvmint don’t have and of course that costs money we’ll need help with.
I figure if we go on a crash program now the civilians can catch up to the guvmint in 10 years or so. Right about the time we decide to Succeed from the Marxist, Socialist country we’ll become. And of course if you Succeed from the US of A you got to be able to defend yourself from the Tyrannical guvmint.
Anyhow, you got to think ahead, and I hope I’ve gave some of the good pro-gun people on here a start on ideas to flesh out.
Have a good Thursday everybody.
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
9:52 am
Christian Conservative – “Well if you won’t take my bet I won’t take yours….”
Uhhhh…. yeah, because it’s not a bet when I agree that the Republicans weren;t going to outlaw abortion. However, you made the claim that Obama was going to make people turn in their weapons as well as confiscate them. The bet is that will not happen. Since I never claimed that Republicans were going to outlaw abortion, there is no wager to be made. I will however, stand by my original offer. $10,000 that you’re claim will NEVER happen.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
9:52 am
SFD — “This commentary on the actual reasons behind the 2nd Amendment (that it was basically a wet, sloppy BJ to slave owners) seemed to upset the tender feefees of our Towncrier yesterday.”
I’ve been arguing with TC (and others, but mostly TC) for over a week now that there’s no right to armed insurrection or armed revolution in the Constitution.
He and others claim that the “militia” spoken of in the 2A is intended for citizens to join so that they can resist government tyranny, but the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 makes it quite clear that *Congress* has control and authority over the militia.
So if anyone would like to show me where in the Constitution the Founders made an explicit distinction between the “militia” in A1, S8 and the “militia” in the 2A, then there’s no logical or Constitutional argument to be made that they’re in any way different — and that the “militia” has nothing whatsoever to do with revolution or insurrection.
Erwin's cat
January 17th, 2013
9:53 am
yawn >^..^<
Shine
January 17th, 2013
9:53 am
The founders were themselves were “traitors”, destroyers of private and government property, etc etc etc
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”
– George Washington
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
– Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
“As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.”
– Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.
– “Political Disquisitions”, a British republican tract of 1774-1775
& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787
“The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788
Simple Truths
January 17th, 2013
9:54 am
Kamchak: Is this somehow link to drudgey?
No, it is a link to kammey.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:54 am
Christian Conservative
“Do you honestly think Scalia would come down on infringes one’s right to bear arms. I don’t think so.”
Justice Scalia: “… In a shocking statement made this morning on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said he believes the U.S. Constitution allows states to regulate firearms.”
If you don’t know how to swim, you really should carry a life preserver.
Michael
January 17th, 2013
9:54 am
@1776, and have you heard of the word “Paranoid.” You buy right into the NRA’s Mantra. My father and my grandfather and myself have never worried about tyranny of the government, except for McCarthy. Maybe you can move to Syria where you can live out your dreams.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
9:55 am
Bookman is assuming that members of our military would attack their own friends and families on American soil. I sincerely doubt they would do that even if ordered to do so by the most divisive little dictator this country has ever had.
If you are so sincere in your doubts, why then do you need to be armed to the teeth?
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:55 am
COVERUPS LIKE fAST AND fURIOUS AND bENGHAZI HAVE GIVEN US PLENTY OF CAUSE TO DISTRUST THE CLOWNS RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. eSPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE APOLOGISTS LIKE BOOKMAN IN THE MEDIA THAT CONDONE THEIR EVERY ILLEGAL ACT.
Woodstock Mike
January 17th, 2013
9:55 am
Politicians are making all Americans look so silly these days…
Last week Obama slams the NRA for having children involved in a speech and yesterday Obama did the exact same thing…
Last week Obama slams the NRA for suggesting schools need armed sercurity and yesterday he says he wants the same thing…
I don’t believe assault weapons have a place in our society but these politicians on both sides of the aisle really take advantage os so many stupid Americans and it’s getting worse and worse.
And if Jay Bookman doesn’t realize that changing the rights of American citizens is taken very seriously by some he also must think we are all stupid…
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:56 am
Christian Conservative
“I certainly wouldn’t picture that either you fruit…”
Your unresolved issues are peeking out again…..
will-o-the-wisp
January 17th, 2013
9:56 am
if i need to carry my m1A1 762 nato to the grocery store as a security blanket, then i should be institutionalized
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:56 am
Because there are criminals out there. Havent you heard?
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
9:56 am
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:51 am
Now cops are telling him to take his anti-American ideas and go to hell. I LIKE IT!
.
.
.
.
What 3 or 4 nut cases?
The rest…not so much.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan/16/Police-chiefs-back-Obama-gun-control-plan/?print&page=all
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179619/-21-000-Law-Enforcement-Pro-s-say-Yes-to-Obama
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
9:57 am
the “militia” has nothing whatsoever to do with revolution or insurrection.
Of course not. Our founders were simply cheap and cowardly on *this* issue, and we are paying the price for it now.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
9:57 am
So why have so many guns been sold over the past several years? In my opinion, it’s the result of a slow but steady increase in the distrust of those who govern us.
More guns have been sold but number of families with guns in their homes have declined. Have you tried looking for a correlation between the rise of Fox and rightwing punditry and the paranoia of the gun nuts and preppers? Perhaps your opinion has been skewed by the lack of facts?
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
9:58 am
Jay
January 17th, 2013
9:31 am
Let me also deal with the earlier poster who cited successful 20th century revolts in Cuba, China and Russia as somehow negating my theory. To the contrary, those examples bolster it.
The communist dictatorship in Russia was overthrown with no shots being fired between the Soviet military and its citizens. People ended that tyranny, not guns.
Fidel Castro overthrew the Cuban government not with handguns and shotguns in the hands of Cuban farmers and workers, but with top-of-the-line military weaponry supplied by the Soviet Union. The notion that Mao’s Red Army was armed with sidearms kept by the Chinese peasantry is even more bizarre, because the peasants had no such arms. Again, it was heavy arms supplied by the Soviet Union, including tanks, as well as military weaponry recovered from the recently defeated Japanese forces in the area.
Jay…counter argument. The Soviets did crush rebellions in Hungary and Czecholslovakia with armed force when the civilians were unarmed.
The examples you mention of China and Cuba further bolster the argument and reasoning behind the 2A. A well armed people have a much better chance of defending themselves.
I will agree on one point….there has to be the will to use them and in those examples you cite the will was there.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
9:58 am
“Bookman is assuming that members of our military would attack their own friends and families on American soil. I sincerely doubt they would do that even if ordered to do so by the most divisive little dictator this country has ever had.”
Actually, I’m making the exact opposite assumption. I am assuming that the US military would never fire on crowds of protesters (Kent State being the rare exception) gathering to protest government overreach, which is why guns in private hands are so useless and unnecessary in that context.
However, I do assume that the government would and should intervene against people who launch armed attacks claiming that they have the right to institute a government of their choosing at gunpoint. Which is yet another reason that guns in private hands are so useless and unnecessary in this context.
(Please note “in this context.” I am not arguing that guns have no legitimate purpose for self defense, because clearly they do and clearly they are protected by the Constitution in that regard.)
TSteaks
January 17th, 2013
9:58 am
Jay you ignorant slut. Obama isn’t stepping on the Constitution by trying to outlaw private ownership of a B-2 bombers. He wants to outlaw private ownership of ordinary weapons. Yes a clip that holds more than ten rounds is still ordinary. And their is no such thing as an “assault” rifle. A rifle can’t assault anyone any more than a hammer can (by the way see the FBI statistics showing more people are killed in the U.S. each year with hammers than guns). Also, though a rifle may look menacing it its actually no different from many hunting rifles. It still only shoots once every time the trigger is pulled, and it may even be the same caliber.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
9:58 am
What I learned from last night’s Bookmaniacs?
if i need to carry my m1A1 762 nato to the grocery store as a security blanket, then i should be institutionalized
The correct reposte to this librul thinking is: “Good thing YOU weren’t around in 1812!”
Paul
January 17th, 2013
9:58 am
keith
“Bookman is assuming that members of our military would attack their own friends and families on American soil. ”
Not at all. Jay’s responding to the right wingers who say the 2nd Amendment exists so they can have guns and fight a tyrannical federal government which includes the military.
Your beef is with them, not Jay.
keith
January 17th, 2013
9:59 am
if i need to carry my m1A1 762 nato to the grocery store as a security blanket, then i should be institutionalized
i agree. And if we have riots like the Watts riots, LA riots, looters like during Katrina you may need a rifle like that to keep your home from burning down with you inside of it.
larry
January 17th, 2013
9:59 am
Now cops are telling him to take his anti-American ideas and go to hell. I LIKE IT!
Yeah, i do too!!
Hey Keith, you wanna ride in my M1A1 tank, Come on buddy.
Oh , its the sheriffs office again. Whattya mean i cant have a M1A1 tank, it’s my 2nd admendment right. The right to bear my arms. My really big arms.
Lord Help Us
January 17th, 2013
10:00 am
According to Reagan: the Nicaraguan Contras were “the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.”
That worked out so well, the neocons have upgrade to, ‘the Afghanis. Somalis, etc. are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.’
Maybe it will work this time…
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:00 am
Brother Kam, these post election meltdowns are a hoot, huh?
The faketriots can no longer win with the ballot, so they want to resort to the bullet.
And I’m so afraid of them!!! LOL!!!
cc, keith and JohhnyTraitor and a bunch of their pal right wing losers are all vewwy, vewwy upset and they are heavily armed!!!
Oh my goodness, whatever will we do???!!!
My guess is that one of these nutjobs from the GOP’s lunatic fringe will try to go all James Earl Ray in Obama’s second term.
RB from Gwinnett
January 17th, 2013
10:00 am
“No offense, you’re just a blogger who gets paid by Cox Media. In my opinion, that does not make you a fountain of knowledge; just a man in a very persuasive position.”
More like a bully pulpit from which he spews his radical left wing propaganda from, actually. Nothing here resembling the “journalist” he claims to be.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
SPC
“So why have so many guns been sold over the past several years? In my opinion, it’s the result of a slow but steady increase in the distrust of those who govern us.”
In my opinion, it’s the result of very effective propaganda and flat-out lying by the NRA, gun manufactures and right-wing talk show hosts.
Recon 0311 2533
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
Another stupid commentary attempting to stereotype firearm owners who disagree with federal government gun bans. It’s highly unlikely that there would be an armed insurrection in this country, however, in a hypothetical scenario where that became actionable out of necessity the military would probably join with the people in deposing a rogue government.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
Holy crap on a cracker!
The crazies have invaded.
Is this somehow link to drudgey?
I’m reminded of the good old days when Jay would call out the Fairly Odd Tax whackos. Anyway, different topic-same crowd. Earth cons are easy.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
R. W. Extreme — “Let me also deal with the earlier poster who cited successful 20th century revolts in Cuba, China and Russia as somehow negating my theory. To the contrary, those examples bolster it.”
Fine. Reason your way out of the nonviolent Polish and Czech ‘velvet revolutions’ of the last 35 years.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
“Jay…counter argument. The Soviets did crush rebellions in Hungary and Czecholslovakia with armed force when the civilians were unarmed.”
Right. Because a few more hunting rifles and shotguns in private hands would have surely turned the battle against Soviet tanks, fighters, artillery and infantry divisions.
cloudodust
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
will-o-the-wisp : If you did need to carry that amount of firepower anywhere, I really don’t think the grocery stores would have any thing left on itheir shelves…
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:02 am
More guns have been sold but number of families with guns in their homes have declined.
and I see no reason to think that this trend won’t continue. Having some kind of gun because there’s a chance to literally walk outside and go hunt game, or maybe set up a target for fun in the back yard, that makes sense if you’re out in the boonies. But fewer and fewer Americans (percentage wise) choose to live in the boonies. We’re becoming more urbanized, not less.
for all their blather, the NRA and their apologists are, statistically speaking, shoveling crap against the tide with a pitchfork.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:02 am
Jay:
You forget some VERY important points that have occurred in countries the world over.
1) I PRAY this never happens but if the Constitutional order of this country ever broke TOTALLY down then millions of gutsy Americans just might try to RESTORE (NOT REVOLT) BUT RESTORE what had been. That would not be treason ………… that would be patriotism !
2) You must remember that those citizens would have fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in the military who might feel the same way. The military would become highly fragmented (as has happened in other countries/situtations) and then an armed citizenry along with at least part of the military could tip the balance and make the difference.
3) You continue to ignore excerpts from Heller v. D.C.
“It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.”
P.S.
Since you are so good at statistics, how many children in the U.S. in the last ten years have been killed by drunk drivers ? If we had a national database of those convicted of DUI’s offenses then we could stop them from buying (or renting) a car ! Oh, they could borrow or steal one but law enforcement could be alerted when they moved into a certain area so they could be monitored.
What say ye ???
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:02 am
Not at all. Jay’s responding to the right wingers who say the 2nd Amendment exists so they can have guns and fight a tyrannical federal government which includes the military.
you are wrong. the military consists of men and women who have family and friends that would, in my opinion, defy any order from a tyrannical govt like we currently have to attack their fellow citizens. i know many many people in the military that would never ever follow such orders from the little dictator.
Seriously Folks
January 17th, 2013
10:03 am
Couple of things…
CC – “Scalia will side with the people as he ALWAYS does”…really? Bush v Gore?…oh well, sleep tight in your bubble.
Secondly, PLEASE spare me the “literal” translations about the 2A…again, I, for one, could care less if you own a pistol, a M-16 or whatever…but you have an OBLIGATION and RESPONSIBILITY to register and learn how to operate. Period. ALL the President proposed was that we have a discussion on what we can do a better job of to address this problem.
I have a “right” to go buy a bulldozer….doesnt mean I can drive it down the middle of I-75 in the middle of rush hour, no matter HOW much I plead that there are “bad drivers out to get me in my car” and I shove them out of the way…
Also, I have said this countless times on these types of threads…CONTEXT people. All those wonderful quotes and espousing of rights did NOT include women or minorities….
Jeffrey
January 17th, 2013
10:03 am
Ya’ll mean I can’t hunt deer with a Hellfire missile?????!!!!!! And I had a nice RPG all picked out to take care of those pesky gophers in in the back pasture. Dern SOCIALISTS!!!!!!!
The other half of your brain.
January 17th, 2013
10:03 am
Jay
January 17th, 2013
8:43 am
Afghanistan? Yes, let’s talk Afghanistan.
With all the guns in private hands there, how “free” are its people?
How was freedom and liberty faring under the Taliban dictatorship before we arrived? Did all those guns allow the Afghans to employ “Second Amendment remedies” and overthrow the viciously repressive Taliban? No, not even close. The Taliban had a death grip on most of the country.
So yes, let’s throw Afghanistan into the argument
” Well that was just plain dumb. Afghanistan has a president with an army and he couldn’t control the Taliban. Hell, he was terrified of them, mainly because they had all those guns.
Look at all the firepower we have and yet we have lost thousands of soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan to bullets. So yes! lets talk about those countries.
I don’t own a handgun or rifle but I support the right of others to do so.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:04 am
So why have so many guns been sold over the past several years? In my opinion, it’s the result of a slow but steady increase in the distrust of those who govern us.”
So, should the legislature and the governor’s office be worried, too?
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:04 am
http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/2013/01/16/0117-luckovich-cartoon-gun-control/?cxntfid=blogs_mike_luckovich
GT
January 17th, 2013
10:04 am
Donovan I love how the right absent of fact or wit will grab the first hostage that comes by to make his, and very seldom her, point. In a gale wind force of reality your gun club tries to walk like it is another day in the park. I think the American public resents your cavalier stubbornness that violent gun events is not a defining factor only found in this country in the bulk supply we see today. Let’s keep the party going for your pleasure, dead children are just collateral damage to the more important person here, that being you, and your selfish desires. After all why should you be punished for the lives of a few children, lets let them be punished for your non essential pleasures.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:05 am
Recon @ 10:01
Very suscinct. Thank you.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
10:05 am
Standing ovation from the majority of America for Jay for this article.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:06 am
Fairly Odd Tax whackos
That’s “Fairy Tale Tax” whackos, buck-o.
RB from Gwinnett
January 17th, 2013
10:06 am
It’s funny watching you liberals trying to gather up the people you’ve been spewing all your hatred at (Christians, business owners, pretty much everybody who won’t bow to your wishes) to sing a big ‘ol round of Kumbaya while they’re all down at the gun store stocking up on guns, magazines, and ammo to tell you to eff off.
bookman parrot
January 17th, 2013
10:06 am
jay,
you are painfully naive in this pass at your propaganda!!! your “supportive arguments” are “head in the sand” and as usual have overexaggerated “examples” that are extremely disrespectful to anyone with common sense.
libs always seem to believe they know what is best for everyone
and that libs should decide for everyone… i.e. libs believe in ideology that easily can step
into dictatorship… especially given the arrogance of the people of the lib camp…
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:06 am
bookman forgets our own revolution. people with small arms defeated the most powerful military in the world. when the masses have the means to fight tyranny they usually win. When they dont they lose. Well we do, but bookman wants to protect tyranny by disarming us.
The other half of your brain.
January 17th, 2013
10:07 am
Jay
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
“Jay…counter argument. The Soviets did crush rebellions in Hungary and Czecholslovakia with armed force when the civilians were unarmed.”
Right. Because a few more hunting rifles and shotguns in private hands would have surely turned the battle against Soviet tanks, fighters, artillery and infantry divisions.
” DUH!, It did in Afghanistan for 10 years, the Soviets lost their Azz their. Damn it just keeps getting easier.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
Excuse me:
“susinct”
bookman parrot
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
amen to keith at 10:06am. you are spot on.
keithb
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
It isn’t about safety, just like Obamacare is not about health.
Political Power is the only concern here, and diminshing the power of U.S. Constitution (i.e. the people, the citizens)
Wake up America. My belief is that we very well may have witnessed the last constitutionaly elected president of the United States of America.
Only appointments will be made for the remainder of Obama’s rule. Look at Castro, will he ever die. Cuba is Obama’s ideal America. With himself being our Socio-Path in Chief and firmly in control.
The producers in America have allowed the moooochers to rule by not electing someone other than Obama to office. Is this the end for America? I’m glad I got this off my chest because the First Amendment will be next. We are a good distance down the slippery slope.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
Since you are so good at statistics, how many children in the U.S. in the last ten years have been killed by drunk drivers ? If we had a national database of those convicted of DUI’s offenses then we could stop them from buying (or renting) a car !
And the number of people killed by drunk drivers have gone down because of government intervention, a crackdown by the government .
What you say ye? or me? or I? or pie!
Thomas
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
Let see- the gov’t needs people to register and provide identity proof for Obamacare and to purchase guns but voter ids send the libs into shock.
simple minds- simple solutions
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:08 am
keith and tyranny…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:09 am
That’s “Fairy Tale Tax” whackos, buck-o.
I sit corrected.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
10:09 am
Recon — “It’s highly unlikely that there would be an armed insurrection in this country, however, in a hypothetical scenario where that became actionable out of necessity the military would probably join with the people in deposing a rogue government.”
I agree.
That said, I don’t think that those who are murmuring about ‘rogue government’ and ‘tyranny’ and ‘revolution’ over the gun issue are going to be the ones driving the train. If the people who are so strongly opposed to the President and his policies were actually the opinion leaders they imagine themselves to be, he wouldn’t be having his second Inauguration next week.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:10 am
If we had a national database of those convicted of DUI’s offenses then we could stop them from buying (or renting) a car !
You post stuff like this like it’d be cray-cray to do this.
It wouldn’t be, not if there were some national movement afoot to do so.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:10 am
Excuse me again:
I mean “succinct”
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
10:10 am
However until that time the Soviets controlled only the major cities. They did not control the entire country by any means.
The various factions and warlords have been armed and used by one side or another for hundreds of years. They have a long history of waging warfare against whatever government is in power, each other, and anyone who looks at them sideways. Continuous warfare is pretty much their natural state. They’re not free and independent, unless you define freedom as “being shot at a bunch.”
So if you want to count that as successful and a hoo-ray for guns ‘n freedom point, you’re welcome to go live there. It’s not coincidental that life in Afghanistan sucks. That’s what happens when you have a bunch of yahoos obsessed with their machismo and guns.
Shine
January 17th, 2013
10:10 am
Actually, I’m making the exact opposite assumption. I am assuming that the US military would never fire on crowds of protesters (Kent State being the rare exception)
The Draft Riots in New York and Bonus Army attack never happened……………..
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
10:10 am
This debate is about the word infringed. The only use of this word I
could find in Madison’s journal of the Constitutional convention was
in regard to each state printing it’s own money and that this should
be infringed meaning stopped completely. This indicates that infringed
in the 2nd amendment means the right to keep and bear arms shall
not be taken away completely.
Atlanta Native
January 17th, 2013
10:11 am
When there is money to be made the LEFT is as greedy as anyone…
Don’t Tell Rabidly Anti-Gun Hardball Host Chris Matthews, But His Employer Sponsors a Gun Show
On his January 10 program, pro-gun control Hardball host Chris Matthews was utterly perplexed at the very notion of gun shows themselves, going further than the call to close the so-called gun show loophole regarding background checks. ” I’m a suburbanite city mouse. I generally have lived in urban — suburban areas, but I don`t know why you need a gun show. I mean, if you want to buy a gun, you buy a car, you go to a dealer. Why do you have to have a show?” Matthews griped.
Well, now it turns out that Matthews’s employer, NBC Universal, is actually sponsoring a massive three-day-long gun show in Las Vegas. The Washington Free Beacon’s C.J. Ciaramella reported shortly after 6 p.m. Eastern on Friday:
The NBC Sports Network, a subsidiary of the communications giant Comcast, is helping to sponsor the largest gun trade show in the country despite anti-gun rhetoric on the NBC family of television networks, including a controversial monologue by one of its sports announcers.
NBC Sports is listed as one of the primary sponsors of the 2013 SHOT Show, which takes place Jan. 15 to18 in Las Vegas and bills itself “the world’s premier exposition of combined firearms.”
[...]
Neither MSNBC nor Comcast responded to a request for comment.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
10:11 am
in a hypothetical scenario where that became actionable out of necessity the military would probably join with the people in deposing a rogue government.
Rendering the need for private ownership of powerful weapons moot.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:11 am
Kumbaya while they’re all down at the gun store stocking up on guns, magazines, and ammo to tell you to eff off.
Yep, reading a magazine is a perfect way to tell someone to eff off.
Where’s my Sports Illustrated?
AtlJack
January 17th, 2013
10:11 am
Jay- great column!
Let’s face the truth. People who obsess over “the guvment” taking their liberty and who count on their personal arsenal of AR15s are basically VERY frightened people. The world is beyond their mental grasp and the swirl of social and economic changes overwhelm them.
The carry their Glock (patting it repeatedly) and fondle their Bushmaster much like a child holds their security blanket. They live in fear. This is why the phrase “you’ll get my guns when you take them from my dead fingers” is so important to them. They CAN’T live without their guns because they would be too afraid to live.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:12 am
half a brain, I doubt you never-served cons could fight off a determined Boy Scout troop.
Seriously.
And you’re going to take on Uncle Sam?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip
January 17th, 2013
10:12 am
When the Cons come out in favor of down sizing the military I’ll believe they fear a Government takeover of their lives.
will-o-the-wisp
January 17th, 2013
10:12 am
i do not carry it around, it lives in a safe with the bolt removed in a safe deposit box.; for personal protection, i prefer bladed weapons and chains.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:12 am
““Jay…counter argument. The Soviets did crush rebellions in Hungary and Czecholslovakia with armed force when the civilians were unarmed.”
Right. Because a few more hunting rifles and shotguns in private hands would have surely turned the battle against Soviet tanks, fighters, artillery and infantry divisions.”
Aw, nuts…. our senior military and political leaders were dead wrong when they said we needed to establish NATO, base hundreds of thousands of US troops in Europe, adding to the western European forces, to counter a possible Soviet invasion and takeover.
Coulda’ got off cheap by just giving the citizens some automatic weapons. THAT woulda’ scared the Red Army!
What were we thinking?!!?
The other half of your brain.
January 17th, 2013
10:13 am
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:01 am
SPC
“So why have so many guns been sold over the past several years? In my opinion, it’s the result of a slow but steady increase in the distrust of those who govern us.”
In my opinion, it’s the result of very effective propaganda and flat-out lying by the NRA, gun manufactures and right-wing talk show hosts.
” Paul every year there is a poll that shows how much the people of our country hate politicans, Congress has a ratinf of about 10% if I’m not wrong.
So yes, people distrust those who govern us. There have been a lot on the left on this site who have expressed that also.
Recon 0311 2533
January 17th, 2013
10:13 am
“More guns have been sold but number of families with guns in their homes have declined.”
In the face of firearm and ammunition sales in the United States that’s an incredibly stupid supposition not a fact.
MANGLER
January 17th, 2013
10:13 am
At least we’ve moved on from Banghazi. This is a much more civil argument.
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
10:14 am
Militia in the 2nd amendment refers to state militias that are
now the National Guard and the people refers to the populace.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:14 am
An armed rebellion against a duly elected government would be an act of treason. Our patriotic cons would commit treason. So sad. Sore losers.
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
10:14 am
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
8:21 am
The Tyranny crowd believes that at some point they are “justified” in killing law enforcement, govt officials and civilians. But they never tell us what the “test” is to determine when they have this “second amendment remedy”. Was it tyranny when civil rights were denied in the south by state governments (and where were they they)? Was it tyranny when Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps (and where were these “freedom fighters”? Could McVeigh have asserted a viable defense that the tyranny crowd would support by claiming that he determined he saw tyranny and he took action as is his “second amendment” remedy right?
Come on cons….tell us when does this right arise in clear and uncertain terms.
I think this is the answer you’re looking for. Worked pretty good back in 1776.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
10:14 am
You do realize, I hope, that during the Cold War the assumption in the U.S. military was that with all our tanks and air power, we very likely would not be able to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe with conventional arms alone and would probably need tactical nukes such as the neutron bomb?
And you seriously propose that privately armed Hungarians could have succeeded?
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
how did the citizens of Vietnam fair against the mighty American military in Vietnam bookman? sure we had the planes, the bombs etc but they had the resolve. Keep restricting our rights and you may see more of that resolve.
AWJ
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
The problem with your point of view Jay is that you have no problem allowing your government to slowly take away your liberties, and thus, becoming more reliant on your federal government, i.e. you trust the government to make better choices for you than you do yourself. You trust that your government has your best interest at heart. I don’t. If your argument is true, how did we ever defeat Great Britain back in the day? That had the most powerful and advanced military of the times. Why did we not win “Afghanistan or Iraq” in 1 week? You see, the fact that the 2nd amendment exists allows us, among other things, to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. An armed citizenry has the choice whether or not they subject themselves to brutal oppressive treatment. Have you never taken a history class? Look at all of the different scenarios where oppressive governments have murdered millions of their own citizens in the 20th and 21st centuries alone. It all starts will unarming the citizenry. I am not making the point that this is where our country is headed, but because of the existence of the 2nd amendment it will make any government think a little harder before they act. It is similar to the belief that the mere existence or possible existence of a “good guy” with a gun can prevent crime from happening, yet that type of scenario is never part of a data set on guns and crime.
Common Sense is Uncommon
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” ~ Founding Father, George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
Paul:
There are many posts on here Jay, I mean Paul… Please refresh my memory….
The whole Jefferson quote
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/exercise
1785 Aug. 19. “Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual…Give about two of them [hours] every day to exercise; for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Never think of taking a book with you. The object of walking is to relax the mind. You should therefore not permit yourself even to think while you walk. But divert your attention by the objects surrounding you. Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far. The Europeans value themselves on having subdued the horse to the uses of man. But I doubt whether we have not lost more than we have gained by the use of this animal. No one has occasioned so much the degeneracy of the human body. An Indian goes on foot nearly as far in a day, for a long journey, as an enfeebled white does on his horse, and he will tire the best horses. There is no habit you will value so much as that of walking far without fatigue. I would advise you to take your exercise in the afternoon. Not because it is the best time for exercise for certainly it is not: but because it is the best time to spare from your studies; and habit will soon reconcile it to health, and render it nearly as useful as if you gave to that the more precious hours of the day. A little walk of half an hour in the morning when you first rise is adviseable also. It shakes off sleep, and produces other good effects in the animal oeconomy.”[3]
indigo
January 17th, 2013
10:15 am
Our country is over 200 years old and the Govt. has NEVER tried to impose tyranny on us.
If they did, we civilians would not last very long against tanks, fighter jets, RPG’s, flame throwers, artillery and heavly armed soldiers and marines.
Therefore, believing you need guns to protect yourself against the Govt. indicates the following:
1. You are suffering from paranoia. This is a serious mental disorder and you need to get immediate help.
2. You are suffering from a serious case of erectile dysfunction. Instead of getting help, you’re using guns as a phallic substitute.
Either way, mental illness and guns are a bad mix.
Williebkind
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
When Christ returns as stated in the Book of Revelation, will he turn the other cheek? No he will come to claim his kingdom. Now liberals will be fighting him unto the death.
Jay
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
“The Draft Riots in New York and Bonus Army attack never happened……………..
And those would have turned out SO much better had the protesters been armed with AR-15s, right?
I’ve got to run out to the Capitol. Please keep it clean and sane….
Jefferson
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
Gun and their owners along with stories about them are pretty much boring and silly.
Banderson
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
Thanks to @skipper for pointing out that even places with strict gun control still have gun violence. @skipper makes the case that we need a national policy on gun control, rather than a patchwork of local laws that can be easily skirted by going to the neighboring state for weapons.
The other half of your brain.
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:12 am
half a brain, I doubt you never-served cons could fight off a determined Boy Scout troop.
Seriously.
And you’re going to take on Uncle Sam?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JamitVet, First of all, have you taken your meds today? I have served, but unlike you I don’t crave sympathy where I have to wear it on my sleeve.
Your post is rather delusional, kinda like you.
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
You do realize, I hope, that during the Cold War the assumption in the U.S. military was that with all our tanks and air power, we very likely would not be able to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe with conventional arms alone and would probably need tactical nukes such as the neutron bomb?
And you seriously propose that privately armed Hungarians could have succeeded?
Do you seriously think that members of our military would turn on their friends and family just because obama told them to? Seriously jay?
GT
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
RB from Gwinnett ain’t no hate here bro. We are just trying to get out of the way of this bull in a china shop you boys have created. And as you are knocking everything loose from the economy, lives and even real Christian belief you’re denying to the shop owners your responsibility. You’re just a dumb cow lost in a china shop making lots of noise; don’t know how all that damage happened.
BLK09GT
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
Michael @ 9:50 AM What’s your definition of an “assault weapon” I know the definition they are throwing out all over the place in regards to defining features which are only cosmetic. (folding/collapsible stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip etc.) They are now wanting the definition to be only one of these features resulting in the reclassification of the weapon. So with pistol grip for instance, this basically bans most guns, not just so called assault weapons. For example, a shotgun such as a Mossberg 500. Has a pistol grip and a collapsible stock. (scary!!) Is this an “assault weapon” ?? The true (non-liberal) definition of an assault weapon is one that is select fire (automatic). Why are the liberals trying to come up with their own definition of a word? The ban on “high” capacity mags results in the same thing. Basically the ban on most semi-auto guns. Most modern guns have a higher capacity than 10 rounds or 7. You are making criminals out of a millions of once law abiding citizens.
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
President Obama taught Constitutional Law, too bad the tea party
didn’t attend.
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
10:18 am
Tyranny
Treason
Opposition to Gun Laws
Resurgence of hate and bigotry
Children being murdered and some people don’t care
The UNITED STATES aint the same.
I guess if everbody went CRAZY TOGETHER
NOBODY would notice, what do you think?
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:18 am
Let see- the gov’t needs people to register and provide identity proof for Obamacare and to purchase guns but voter ids send the libs into shock
You want shock?
This dirty effing hippie is all for national IDs. I think the Federal Government should provide passports free of charge to all of its citizens. (We’d benefit from international travel as those opportunities arise, and it’d provide everyone with a rock-solid form of traceable ID).
You with me? You willing to fund something that runs $165 per person?
perhaps with volume efficiency, we could get that down to—let’s be optimistic—one fourth of that. So it’d be only 12.3 billion or so to implement.
I’m all for this. How about you?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
10:19 am
but voter ids send the libs into shock.
And how much would you be willing to spend – on a per head basis – to produce, distribute and maintain a database that could be used for not only voting but to take care of the illegal alien problem?
You see, we’ve actually had this discussion before, but blowhards usually run away when confronted with a discussion about how to finance this voter ID thingie.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:19 am
Keep restricting our rights and you may see more of that resolve.
Go for it, traitor.
BTW, the Viet Namese people were fiercely courageous, long sighted and willing to make huge sacrifices.
You Republicans?
Puhleeze.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:19 am
An armed rebellion against a duly elected government would be an act of treason. Our patriotic cons would commit treason. So sad. Sore losers.
Considering some of them want us to default on our debts by not raising the debt ceiling , this suprises you ?
Still no response from keith or anyone about riding in my A1M1 tank.
Huh? There’s that pesky sheriff’s deputy again. But sir , it’s my 2nd admendment………………
Olderandwiser49
January 17th, 2013
10:19 am
Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
Classified guns for “sporting purposes”.
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
If any of this sounds familiar, you must have read Obama’s gun control plans!
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
10:20 am
Jay’
I’ve got to run out to the Capitol. Please keep it clean and sane….
……………………………………………………………
clean is a lot easier than sane……
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
In the face of firearm and ammunition sales in the United States that’s an incredibly stupid supposition not a fact.
It’s not a stupid supposition. It is backed by current polling data. The trendlines are quite clear, whatever wee upticks you might see whenever the NRA goes into Tardcon 5.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/gun-ownership-declining1.png
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
half, then do you Republican duty and fire the first shot at Uncle Sam.
Didn’t work out so well for the traitors last time, as I recall…
TeeryK
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
A fairly reasoned presentation with a major flaw. AR15 type rifles are extremly common now. They are NOT exotic, uncommon or rare.
Stingers, M 240s, M2s etc are uncommon but NOT AR15 type rifles.
30 years ago they were hard to find but now WalMart has (had) them. It’s too late fro Bookman’s example.
The same applies to high capacity magazines. In 1975 it was really hard to find a handfun with a 15 round magazine. Today they are common.
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
If they did, we civilians would not last very long against tanks, fighter jets, RPG’s, flame throwers, artillery and heavly armed soldiers and marines
your utter lack of respect for our military is disgusting. they would never turn their weapons on their fellow Americans just because your radical leader ordered them to. it also shows how you feel about obama in that you find it plausible that he would give that order. so you really think obama would order the military to kill Americans? Well he HAS done that before.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
other half brain
‘In my opinion, it’s the result of very effective propaganda and flat-out lying by the NRA, gun manufactures and right-wing talk show hosts.
” Paul every year there is a poll that shows how much the people of our country hate politicans, Congress has a ratinf of about 10% if I’m not wrong.
So yes, people distrust those who govern us. There have been a lot on the left on this site who have expressed that also.”
To say dissatisfaction with Congress over their performance is the reason people buy guns…..
Say, do you think gun sales would go up if a free tinfoil hat were included?
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
10:22 am
@barking frog
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
President Obama taught Constitutional Law, too bad the tea party
didn’t attend.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are PECANS
There are CASHEWS
Then there ARE just plain NUTS
Ruff Ruff
Bow wow bow wow
Recon 0311 2533
January 17th, 2013
10:22 am
0311/8541,
No problem I depend heavily on spell checkers. Semper Fi
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:22 am
Kam, jinx!
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
10:22 am
R. W. Extreme — “I think this is the answer you’re looking for. Worked pretty good back in 1776.
Good try, but no. The Declaration of Independence is a beautiful and timeless document, to be sure, but it carries no force of law in the country.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:22 am
Ratliff says don’t forget to wear a helmet at all times, cons. In fact, you best sleep in full body armor just in case President Obama storms your houses in the middle of the night.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
10:24 am
It’s highly unlikely that there would be an armed insurrection in this country, however, in a hypothetical scenario where that became actionable out of necessity the military would probably join with the people in deposing a rogue government.
Well then genius if the military will join the people, the govt has no weapons….why then do the people need anything more than self-protection?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:24 am
Hey Jay (and assorted libs.) ………… here’s your sign:
Headline (AJC): “Gun measures face a tough road. The House and Senate responded warily after Obama unveiled his proposals to curb gun violence.”
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:24 am
Jay’
I’ve got to run out to the Capitol. Please keep it clean and sane….
You mean swim out to the Capitol, and ice skate back.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:25 am
Christian Conservative
“There are many posts on here Jay, I mean Paul… Please refresh my memory…”
Yes there are. I try to keep focused on the particular post, with a reference to it in my first responses.
But frankly, it’s rather overcome by events, besides which, I’ll be leaving in a bit to spend the weekend with my folk and seeing one of the kids and his family.
williebkind
January 17th, 2013
10:25 am
“Didn’t work out so well for the traitors last time, as I recall…”
But they did it! And with lesser firearms, artillery, ships, clothing, and food. It was horrible. Then the reconstruction period began and that was just as horrible. We remember through letters and handed down stories of those who were there. We will defend the constitution, as we had a right to leave the union and fought for that.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:26 am
Will Rush be the Impotent Army’s Supreme Commander when the cons revolt?
fedup
January 17th, 2013
10:26 am
Obama is a tyrant of a few for sure. He is mentally torturing these nuts by getting elected by the majority. These nuts think more guns is the solution. Bugs called these folks “what a maroon”.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:26 am
overthrow the gov’t? what fiction is boob writing about now? it will serve as a deterrent to the gov’t to arrest you without cause for political reasons. such liberal BS hubris.
Dirty Dawg
January 17th, 2013
10:26 am
Mythological claptrap? Is that the same thing as ‘effin bulls&$t’? You guys simply can’t believe that this President ain’t gonna take all those damn guns away, can ya? The ham-handed, idiotic, responses to Obama’s announcement by the NRA, and the rest of the wingnuters, is telling. Obama outlined a broad-range of initiatives, including money to help the States place armed guards in schools (about the only thing the NRA has proposed), and what does the damned NRA do? Run a commercial saying that he doesn’t want It. They were, and are, gonna fight him, and the majority of the Country as well, no matter what he does or what we want. Elections don’t matter to em…public opinion doesn’t matter…bullet-ridden bodies of babies and the pleas of their parents doesn’t matter…the only thing that matters to them is money and power. Just remember, the only thing that trumps money from single-agenda lobbiests is the overwhelming will of the people, and this time we won’t be denied. I’ll be able to keep my grandaddy’s shotguns and my grandmother’s 32 cal revolver with the broken firing pin and they can keep all theirs…we just won’t have, and don’t need, enough assault weapons and ammo to knock over Fort Knox…or see how many kids we can ‘take with us’ when we decide its time to go.
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:27 am
it would be funny if the guns and ammo makers decide to boycott the govt. I really hope they all relocate away from states with gun control. The economy of those state will just tank a little more.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:27 am
fedup- and how would any of the 23 EO’s impact the sandy hook cirminal? ??maroons are you.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
10:27 am
Paul:
It must be non-sense as usual then if you can’t remember either…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
10:27 am
Recon: “More guns have been sold but number of families with guns in their homes have declined.” In the face of firearm and ammunition sales in the United States that’s an incredibly stupid supposition not a fact.
Perhaps your response and ignorance is more the problem:
DID YOU KNOW? Household gun ownership has been declining since the 1970s.
•The percentage of American households with a gun has been steadily declining over time, (from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 32 percent in 2010) (Smith, 2008 and Violence Policy Center, 2011).
•Gun ownership is highly concentrated. Approximately 20 percent of gun owners own 65 percent of the nation’s guns (Hepburn, p. 16).
•Household gun ownership may be declining even though millions of guns are sold each year in part because gun owners are adding more guns to their collections. The average number of guns per owner has increased from 4.1 in 1994 to 6.9 in 2004 (Hepburn, p. 18).
http://bradycampaign.org/facts/gunsinamerica
weetamoe
January 17th, 2013
10:27 am
McVeigh did not have *military-style* weapons to do a pretty good job of wiping out the fraction of government that he targeted. The one percenter couple living in an upscale NY apartment —-apparently inspired by Bill Ayers and the Occupiers–had enough explosives and other weapons to do a fair amount of damage to their target.
Since the real issue (much as Obama is trying to avoid it) is the economy, maybe if we encourage young children to write to him about their angst concerning the national debt, he will publish 23 ways to reduce government spending.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
A fairly reasoned presentation with a major flaw. AR15 type rifles are extremly common now. They are NOT exotic, uncommon or rare.
Perhaps not. However, (just so that people understand what “gun grabbing” could actually look like in the real world, as opposed to some meth-fueled fantasy) we could do like the Aussies and implement a buy back program, if there were the political will to do so. See also:
http://guncontrol.org.au/2000/11/a-beginners-guide-to-australian-gun-laws/
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
dirty dawg – where is obama borrowing that “more money”?
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:21 am
so you really think obama would order the military to kill Americans? Well he HAS done that before.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When? I can’t wait to hear this whopper…….
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
Williebkind
January 17th, 2013
10:16 am
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
When Christ returns as stated in the Book of Revelation, will he turn the other cheek? No he will come to claim his kingdom. Now liberals will be fighting him unto the death.
.
.
.
.
Do you think he’ll reclaim his kingdom with an Uzi or with the power of his love?
Which do you think is more powerful?
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
Jay
January 17th, 2013
10:14 am
You do realize, I hope, that during the Cold War the assumption in the U.S. military was that with all our tanks and air power, we very likely would not be able to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe with conventional arms alone and would probably need tactical nukes such as the neutron bomb?
And you seriously propose that privately armed Hungarians could have succeeded?
Jay…part of our defense posture in the Cold War was to use nukes to avoid having to fund and maintain a huge standing army in Europe. We can debate whether the army we had there was huge or not later.
Now to your question.
I don’t know whether the the Hungarians would have won or not if they had been armed. The point is they weren’t and the Soviets put down their rebellion.
Some have cited the peaceful overthrow of communism as a counter argument to an armed populace being able to overthrow a government. There are those examples.
There are however more examples of governments moving against unarmed segments of a society than the former.
The Founding Fathers made a decision that fighting for liberty was in their interests. Not everyone on the colonies joined in the fight for liberty. I’m sure a lot of the questions we’re asking on this board were being asked then. Do we really have the right to fight the king? Can our forces beat his? Those are good questions. I think we are all thankful for how things worked out.
We have been fortunate there have only been four wars fought on this continent since becomming a nation none of which have occured in the past 100 years. The Revoluntionary War, War of 1812, Civil War and the Wars agains the Indians which I consider one for sake of discussion.
I think if we were living in those times attitudes about the 2A might be a little different when you are fighting for your existence.
I hope we never have to those kinds of discussions again. But history tells us othewise.
Which side will you stand on if it happens? As Patrick Henry said, “give me liberty or give me death.”
Seriously Folks
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
@Keith..seriously? your 10:06 post.. “people with small arms….” you forgot to add the SECOND most powerful Navy/Army in the world at the time at their side too…remember the French? And the fact that we made alliances with the Spanish not to engage either???? Sheesh. Please quit being selective in your history to romanticize things.
keithb
January 17th, 2013
10:28 am
Obama is simply hell bent on the destruction of our government.
An obsession ingrained since childhood.
I think we sober minded know what is at the door.
World War II was not the end of the world, but I’ll bet you would have been hard pressed to find a Jewish person, waiting for execution, who didn’t think so.
williebkind
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
“Will Rush be the Impotent Army’s Supreme Commander when the cons revolt?”
You liberals sure are funny!
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
stands for decibel: where is your budget surplus to do this new spending? or, just more borrowing? tax and spend bleeding heart liberals are still the foundation of liberaldom.
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
keith – “people with small arms defeated the most powerful military in the world.”
Yes, with the help of the French. What country are you counting on to come to your aid once you begin your revolt?
godless heathen
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
Heathen, if a father of a murdered child acts in a way you consider “abnormal” that’s simply not your business. Unless your kid has been blown away by a crazy you don’t know what you’d do.
Guarantee that I would not be yucking it up with my pals and then go all somber when the camera came on.
Just an observation that it seemed strange but people do strange things. No need to go all nasty on me, but that is your usual demeanor so it’s not surprising.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
keith
“Do you seriously think that members of our military would turn on their friends and family just because obama told them to? Seriously jay?”
ONE…. MORE…. TIME….
THAT’S WHAT THE RIGHTWINGERS OPPOSED TO OBAMA KEEP SAYING!!!
Not that shouting does any good for those who will not hear….
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
dB
Heh, heh, heh.
But I think your numbers are off.
Estimated U.S. pop = 315,175,866 x $165 = $52,004,017,890
An no, you don’t get to divide by 4, ’cause this sucker is gonna be privatized.
Robert
January 17th, 2013
10:30 am
A lot of posters have a very strong opinion concerning the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. What about the 14th Amendment?
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
(US Constitution, 14th Amendment)
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
10:30 am
@GT
January 17th, 2013
10:17 am
RB from Gwinnett ain’t no hate here bro. We are just trying to get out of the way of this bull in a china shop you boys have created. And as you are knocking everything loose from the economy, lives and even real Christian belief you’re denying to the shop owners your responsibility. You’re just a dumb cow lost in a china shop making lots of noise; don’t know how all that damage happened.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Feeling lost, CRAZY and desperate belongs to a good life
as much as OPTIMISM, CERTAINTY and REASON.
Where is your so called “CHRISTIAN BELIEFf” now?
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:30 am
it would be funny if the guns and ammo makers decide to boycott the govt. I really hope they all relocate away from states with gun control. The economy of those state will just tank a little more.
We have them here in Georgia. For ex: Glock in Smyrna.
And how is our economy fairing ?
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
10:30 am
keith – “but bookman wants to protect tyranny by disarming us.”
I’ve got $10,000 says that no one will take away your guns or make you turn them in. You in?
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:32 am
keep up the good fight: what is the basis for these statistical assertions? those statistics are IMPOSSIBLE TO obtain.
Reality Check
January 17th, 2013
10:32 am
The one that is committing treason here is President Obama and the State Department for trying to ignore the US Constitution and commit a crime against the law abiding citizenry of the USA. Hopefully the US Congress will put an end to this treachery or the US Supreme Court will stop the illegal action by the White House. The US President should not be allowed to commit treason against his people! The US Constitution should stand and it should be upheld as the law of the land.
Seriously Folks
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
I think it should be required that ANYONE else who post long quotes by our Founding Fathers has to include the asterisk that says, ” * these rights do not extend to women or minorities”
(and, actually, at the time of the signing, it also did not extend to “non-property” owners…that came in the early 1800’s under President Jackson…and even then, of course, it was for WHITE men….)
Old Goober
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
Whilst I was walking I couldn’t help but think about that lass Sally Hemings. The girl is looking better and better.
Thomas Jefferson
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
“Well then genius if the military will join the people, the govt has no weapons….why then do the people need anything more than self-protection?”
Ah ……………… because maybe only half the military might join the people and therefore “the people” would be enough to make the difference ?
Geez !
XD9 Mom
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
Argue all you want about tyranny and traitors. I carry a gun to protect myself, and those around me, from the violent acts of criminals. PERIOD. Blame the fracturing of the American Family, blame the violent movies/video games, whatever. It is my personal (and my family’s) SAFETY that makes me carry a gun.
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
I’ve got $10,000 says that no one will take away your guns or make you turn them in. You in?
of course not because regardless, they will never get my guns.i would “sell” them first. lol
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
So how do we get the cons to forget about all the hoopla about the debt ceiling. Well, there’s abortion. Naw, that one’s been overplayed. How about guns. That should do the trick. You’re right. Earth cons are easy.
keithb
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
Poor Fred,
I struck a chord, you must be a mooocher.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
robert – I love the 14th amendment. IMO, it prohibits our progressive income tax system.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:34 am
Christian Conservative
“It must be non-sense as usual then if you can’t remember either…”
I was being polite and really saying “I initially reference the post that prompted my reply. If the other party (you) then goes down so many rabbit holes he gets lost, I’m not real inclined to help him find his way out.”
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
10:34 am
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:26 am
Will Rush be the Impotent Army’s Supreme Commander when the cons revolt?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Seriously Jamvet, when one of these nutcases, or nut case groups, snaps and does do some domestic terrorism or attempt to assassinate the President Rush will say, “I’m just an entertainer.”
Reading the responses from the unhinged here the last couple of times and watching fox (I can’t bring myself o listen to Rush lol) I see the rhetoric being dialed up WAY past the crazy level. Someone IS going to snap.
von
January 17th, 2013
10:34 am
Regardless of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment (our founding fathers believing citizenry being able to already own the tools needed to formed an informal armed force, regardless of intent or purpose) most of you anti-gun nuts are forgetting the last words of that amendment- “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This indicates that regardless of the reason given for why they feel it needed, that all citizens can have any weapons they choose and that no government shall get in the way or interfere with that…I mean I am assuming you all know what the word INFRINGE means. As to whether the reason itself still holds water: debatable but not enough of you agree on that to get it changed and even if you did, you dont have enough guns to make it happen so your position is counterproductive to your goal. As for those arguing “Well the founding fathers didnt know about automatic weapons…” Weapons technology even in the 18th century was constantly evolving with the latest evolution being muzzle loaded rifles (as muskets were the more prevalent weapon of the day) this was important because rifles were far more accurate (a modern comparison would be dis5inguishing rate of fire since ultimately the point is likelihood of hitting a target) so now you have a weapon that can load as quickly as a musket but if far more accurate AND with longer range…furthermore they actually had the first semi automatic weapon developed during the revolutionary war. It was called the Belton Flintlock Rifle and it could in fact fire twenty rounds without reloading so dont get me started on this “They didnt know about high capacity weapons back then. They did.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:34 am
taxpayer – when do liberals begin advocating for a balanced budget? or is that beyond their irresponsiblity?
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
10:35 am
keithb
January 17th, 2013
10:33 am
Poor Fred,
I struck a chord, you must be a mooocher.
++++++++++++++++++
I guess that means you can’t provide proof of the president ordering the military to kill Americans. I thought not.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:35 am
“Will Rush be the Impotent Army’s Supreme Commander when the cons revolt?”
They are in trouble if they are. Neil Peart, Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson dont have a violent bone in their bodies.
But i’m sure they will make it a hell of a show.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:35 am
Ah ……………… because maybe only half the military might join the people and therefore “the people” would be enough to make the difference ?
Ah……….. but maybe on one quarter will or maybe three quarters will or will not! Geeeeez!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
10:35 am
RW Extreme, so you are saying that the 2d amendment requires a “declaration” before remedies can be undertaken? And how many must support? Let’s recall that generally only 1/3 of the colonists supported revolution.
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:35 am
We have them here in Georgia. For ex: Glock in Smyrna.
And how is our economy fairing ?
if we didnt have to support all those welfare mommas and daddys in atlanta it would be great.
Recon 0311 2533
January 17th, 2013
10:35 am
It’s not a stupid supposition. It is backed by current polling data.
There is no accurate poll on how many homes have firearms. There is accuracy in determining how many guns and ammunition that’s sold through licensed dealers. Private owner transfers and gun show trades can’t at least currently be accurately tracked. We have millions of guns and rounds of ammunition in various calibers in this country making it virtually impossible to enforce national gun control laws.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:36 am
Jay’s last sentence is all you need to know about the pollyanna, deluded utopia that most boob liberals exist in.
southpaw
January 17th, 2013
10:36 am
Fred @10:28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi#Death
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
10:37 am
@williebkind
January 17th, 2013
10:29 am
“Will Rush be the Impotent Army’s Supreme Commander when the cons revolt?”
You liberals sure are funny!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you’re going to be CRAZY LIKE RUSH, you have to get paid for it or
else you’re going to be locked up.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:37 am
liberals LIKE benign tyranny. so, pretending they would stand up to tyranny is a big joke.
lovelyliz
January 17th, 2013
10:38 am
“Second Amendment is not license for treason, armed revolt” No, but it’s a good tag l;ine when your job is to sell more guns and that’s really the NRA’s job as lobbyist for gun manufacturers
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:38 am
Uh Oh! A con got distracted from the “they’ll have to pry my guns from my cold dead fingers” mantra. So. How much will the deficit be reduced per year by the Republican deficit reduction plan. How much will the debt be reduced per year. How much will the debt ceiling be reduced per year.
retired early
January 17th, 2013
10:39 am
Jay
This may be hard to believe, but the anti government, Obama, and all Democrats bunch don’t bother to blog. Based on personal conversations with some of these people, their hate and distain for the government is only surpassed by their distrust of same.
These are poorly educated white men who’s total source of information comes from Rush Limbaugh and other right wing talk shows. There is a predictable pattern to their answers to any question. Those answers being supported by misinformation and pure racism and intolerance.
At the center of their arguments is the belief that there is a concerted effort by the Federal government to “take over this country and all the freedoms that we enjoy”…this all starts, they say, with the “right to bear arms”. This has been drilled into them to the point where it is “imprinted” into the very core of who they are.
I fault those right wing talk show host, who for the sake of the almighty dollar, have fanned the flames of hatred and mistrust, accelerating the great divide that now exist in this country.
Yes, these people are far more dangerous than I would have believed and with Obama’s latest gun control efforts only confirming these people’s wildest fears, I truly fear that he may now be a target. Surely, the Secret Service is aware of this increased danger and have beefed up security…I sure hope so. This country needs great men like Obama, who are willing to make a stand against the special interest who try to run this country…Please keep him safe.
brad
January 17th, 2013
10:39 am
oh wait….armed citizens overthrowing a more powerful and better armed government? Do you read the news? Egypt, Libya, Afganhastan, Every country in Africa. Your argument is stupid and doesn’t support the facts. A well armed citizen is a more effective fighter than a military soldier when fighting on home turf. The soldiers eventually quit trying to kill their fellow citizens and turn on the GOVERNMENT.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
10:40 am
Boob Liberals?
Penis Conservatives?
Butt Libertarians?
Oh the humanty!
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:40 am
so you really think obama would order the military to kill Americans? Well he HAS done that before.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When? I can’t wait to hear this whopper…….
Where have you been? You didnt know that predator drones have been ordered to kill American citizens? You really should get better informed.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
10:40 am
When? I can’t wait to hear this whopper…….
Fred
Maybe this?
http://www.thechicagodope.com/2010/11/11/cia-admits-drone-strike-killed-six-in-wisconsin-wedding-party/
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:40 am
liberals, such as the moron uh huh advocate locking up folks who don’t suffer their group think. selah. the left is very close to fascism. look at the laws of NY, and Chicago. and, their crime has disappeared, as well as gun deaths, no?
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
10:40 am
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:35 am
We have them here in Georgia. For ex: Glock in Smyrna.
And how is our economy fairing ?
if we didnt have to support all those welfare mommas and daddys in atlanta it would be great.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Name some of those welfare momma’s and daddy’s. You are so quick to toss around your silly lies, how about bringing us some names there lil keith. Oh and pray tell, what is YOUR job that has you post so prolificly at this time in the morning? Either you are retired, don’t have a job, or are ripping off your employer by being here instead of doing work. Talk about a moocher………..
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:40 am
What country are you counting on to come to your aid once you begin your revolt?
The Republicans?
They could probably get the Iranians to help them out.
LOTS of fellow Uncle Sam haters over there…
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
10:40 am
Paul:
No Jay, I mean Paul… I think you’re lost….
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
10:40 am
David Koresh, Tim McVeigh, etc. proved you can attack the
government at any time but you will suffer the consequences.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
10:40 am
Well now Senior Arabic Digits, Johnny Reb has stated that he honestly believes Obama is committing tyranny. Assuming his believe is honest and heart felt, what are his constitutional remedies under the 2d Amendment? What acts may he take?
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:41 am
There are no accurate polls. Except for those skewed polls that the Republicans rely on.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:41 am
if we didnt have to support all those welfare mommas and daddys in atlanta it would be great.
So , they all live in Atlanta huh?, they dont live in the rural areas where the economy and unemployment are higher than Atlanta?
Okay, i will call you on your stereotype. Proof please.
And if i can just get rid of this sheriff’s deputy whos saying i dont have a right to an A1M1 tank under the 2nd amendment, we’ll go for a ride .
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:41 am
von
“- “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This indicates that regardless of the reason given for why they feel it needed, that all citizens can have any weapons they choose and that no government shall get in the way or interfere with that…I mean I am assuming you all know what the word INFRINGE means. ”
I don’t know any other way to say this and get across the full sense of it.
When you come on a blog and post without even reading the lead piece, which concerns US law and the reasoning the Court used to decide it, you look really, really, really stupidly ignorant.
AnywhereInTX
January 17th, 2013
10:41 am
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The bill of rights is not to be interpreted in my opinion.
keithb
January 17th, 2013
10:41 am
I have enjoyed all this.
We had better.
Executive powers will circumvent the first amendment, and that will be the topic of discussion by this time next year.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:42 am
loveliz: how do you square the increase in gun sales since obama announced his gun control intentions? or does reality bother liberals? NRA is not owned by gun manufacturers. should the Sierra Club be banned?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
10:42 am
the left is very close to fascism.
There’s your sign.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:42 am
Are you cons worried that BHO is gonna drone you to the promised land?
Hysterical…
weetamoe
January 17th, 2013
10:42 am
Ach himmel–here we go again. Obama did not teach constitutional law and he was not a professor- He had no tenure. He merely worked as an adjunct — a part time lecturer of a couple of survey courses. As his former dean has attested he was not even considered an intellectual, but * merely someone who had learned to imitate the actions of an intellectual.* On the other hand, there is much TEA party admiration for Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter, a truly brilliant young African-American intellectual.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:42 am
fred – you are a boob.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:43 am
Christian Conservative
And if you’re not Roman Catholic (let alone Eastern Orthodox) you’re just another apostate heretic -
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:43 am
Fred doesnt seem to know history very well. But how could he, he spends all day listening to the left rewriting it.
Garden Diva
January 17th, 2013
10:43 am
@Jerome Horwitz and others who state that “We in the US have an option not available to most of the world. It’s called a VOTE. That’s your protection against tyranny.”
Might I suggest that, while voting is a wonderful thing and something that I do as frequently as allowed, it is possible that voting and democracy can be circumvented if some of the parties involved have ulterior motives and do not plan on playing by the established rules. If a society behaves in a particularly naïve fashion, who’s to say that this society couldn’t be deceived by a politician who presents him/her self as one who respects the law of the land but consolidates power in order to take over. I believe that is called a coup. And, if I remember correctly, coups have taken place on a regular basis, even in the current time.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:44 am
Boob Liberals?
Penis Conservatives?
Butt Libertarians?
Oh the humanty!
LOL!
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
10:44 am
I’m beginning to beleive that all these supposed posters are really Jay: Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes, Jamvet, Paul, Granny Godzilla, TaxPayer
Notice how they don’t ever post together or even acknowledge each other… Even so their new name is the Bookman Buffoons… Its certainly fitting….. And where is Jay? I guess having all this supposed followers is a way to show his bosses he has a following. Even if it is so few…..
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:44 am
…how do you square the increase in gun sales since obama announced his gun control intentions?
The exact same explanation as to why the KKK’s membership jumped after his election in November 2008…
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
10:44 am
eith
January 17th, 2013
10:40 am
so you really think obama would order the military to kill Americans? Well he HAS done that before.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When? I can’t wait to hear this whopper…….
Where have you been? You didnt know that predator drones have been ordered to kill American citizens? You really should get better informed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Holy crap. And Jay pulled my first post because I suggested this guy is mentally unstable? Here we have proof that he’s completely bat crap CRAZY.
Thanks for the info. under the broad reaching and unintended interpretation of the American’s with Disabilities Act, I will no longer address you. In further pointing out your insanity I will probably be considered “harrassing” someone with a know disability. Have a great day.
Oh and if you have a tear in your beanie let me be of assistance:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
10:44 am
@Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:36 am
Jay’s last sentence is all you need to know about the pollyanna, deluded utopia that most boob liberals exist in.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Boob Liberals?
I would imagine that if you could understand MORSE CODE,
a TAP DANCER would drive you BOOB CONS CRAZY.
Tap tap tap tap…………
indigo
January 17th, 2013
10:45 am
rightwingextreme
Is this you?
http://warincontext.org/2011/01/09/the-gun-preeminent-symbol-of-the-impotence-of-the-american-citizen/
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:45 am
David Koresh did not attack the govt. the govt attacked him. Now will you justify the deaths of all those children??
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:45 am
cc…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljQMpgVY5mg
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:46 am
AnywhereinTX
“The bill of rights is not to be interpreted in my opinion.”
Don’t know much about the constitution, do you?
Yup, we definitely need new high school textbooks in Texas -
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:46 am
Hey cons! Don’t forget to ask Deal during his State of the Confederacy speech when he’s going to start creating those jobs here in Georgia. I see the unemployment rate is up again. To get Deal’s attention, get one of your average Joes to yell out something like YOU LIE.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:46 am
kamchak – look at the laws passed in liberally controlled placed. liberals think they are superior to the masses of peasants, so they need to pass laws to improve their lives – so they don’t have to look at them and feel sympathy. but, the failure of LBJ’s great society adequately demonstrates that poverty can not be conquered, and liberals are simply throwing good money after bad. look at the Atlanta public housing – those poor folks destroyed those brick building in less than 50 years. pathetic ingrates.
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
10:47 am
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:42 am
fred – you are a boob.
+++++++++++++++++++
And we have another person from the Rush school of charm and debate.
Note the use of grammar and context to drive home the point.
Look at the keenly polished skill of laying out a good argument.
See how he cites sources for his well thought out argument.
Notice how he states on topic and doesn’t result to name calling………
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:47 am
Paul:
No Jay, I mean Paul… I think you’re lost….
George? …………….. John…………… Oh bloody, where’s Ringo?
Ringo?!! On the ceiling again i see. Get down from there right now.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
10:47 am
I’m beginning to beleive that all these supposed posters are really Jay: Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes, Jamvet, Paul, Granny Godzilla, TaxPayer
First I was accused of being Cynthia Tucker and now I’m supposed to be Jay.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
weetamoe
January 17th, 2013
10:47 am
The drone jockeys commanded by Obama have already droned a few kids to the *promised land,* but they were not his kids and I don’t know if any of them were *products of rape.* Some people being more equal than others and all.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:48 am
uh huh is one of those snarky butt holes that frequently got beat up in school. diarrhia of the mouth without much substance behind it. but, it makes him feel good. bleeding heart and all.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
10:48 am
I’m Spartacus.
NO, I’m Spartacus.
NO! I’m Spartacus….
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:48 am
“Even so their new name is the Bookman Buffoons…”
Mighty Christian of you, Conservative -
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
10:48 am
David Koresh did not attack the govt.
True, the scumbag just thought he was above the government.
And got his martyr wishes to come true by getting all of those innocent people killed…
BTW, IMUO, Koresh fans are some of the most depraved Republicans of them all, keith…
BADA BING (imagine an umlaut above the i, I'm trying to class this place up a little)
January 17th, 2013
10:48 am
Treason? If politicians don’t follow the Constituion, isn’t that Treason?
Recon 0311 2533
January 17th, 2013
10:49 am
keep
Common sense alone should be sufficient enough to tell you that your poll statistics mostly as it appears from left wing sources has got to be nonsense. I’ll keep it simple for you by asking how in a free and open society a polling organization could accurately gather that kind of data on firearm ownership?
SouthernGent
January 17th, 2013
10:49 am
Another dumb column by the bonehead of liberal policies at AJC. You obviously flunked out of your civics course or studied the Russian Constitution instead of the US Constitution. It is the height of hypocrisy for a liberal supporter of Obama to talk about treason. The 2nd amendment is very clear and does not need dunderheads such as you Jay to try to torture and twist it.
indigo
January 17th, 2013
10:49 am
retired early – 10:39
Most of them are also fundamentalist Christians who, on a regular basis, here sermons about how evil and dangerous liberals are and about how good “Christian soldiers” protect their homes by being heavily armed against a godless, heathen liberal Govt. from Hell.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:49 am
fred – your asinine idealism threshold in this disposable commentary simply indicates just how booby thou art. I guess that arrogance feeds your inferiority complex. tell me what happened to the atlanta public housing projects.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
10:49 am
weetamoe
January 17th, 2013
10:42 am
Ach himmel–here we go again. Obama did not teach constitutional law and he was not a professor- He had no tenure. He merely worked as an adjunct — a part time lecturer of a couple of survey courses. As his former dean has attested he was not even considered an intellectual, but * merely someone who had learned to imitate the actions of an intellectual.* On the other hand, there is much TEA party admiration for Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter, a truly brilliant young African-American intellectual.
.
.
.
.
Funny you should post that piffle….
From Fact Check
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
10:49 am
@Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
10:44 am
I’m beginning to beleive that all these supposed posters are really Jay: Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes, Jamvet, Paul, Granny Godzilla, TaxPayer
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A newspaper is a DEVICE for making the IGNORANT more ignorant
and the CRAZY crazier.
Which are you?
IGNORANT?
CRAZY?
Christian HYPOCRITE?
The other half of your brain.
January 17th, 2013
10:50 am
Say, do you think gun sales would go up if a free tinfoil hat were included?
Paul. You will have to get yours from Jamvet.
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
10:50 am
keith – “David Koresh did not attack the govt. the govt attacked him.”
Exactly, it’s every Americans God given right to rape children under the pretense of being their spiritual leader. Bravo keith, keep up the good fight.
von
January 17th, 2013
10:50 am
@Paul. When you assume I havent read the lead piece, when in fact I have, you look even more stupidly ignorant. When you fail to counter anything I have said with so much as one thing of substance, you look like you get easily distracted by shiny objects and jingling keys.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:50 am
David Koresh did not attack the govt. the govt attacked him. Now will you justify the deaths of all those children??
And now you are defending a child molester
You must have a new shovel, because you keep on digging.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
10:51 am
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
10:44 am
I’m beginning to beleive that all these supposed posters are really Jay: Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes, Jamvet, Paul, Granny Godzilla, TaxPayer
Notice how they don’t ever post together or even acknowledge each other… Even so their new name is the Bookman Buffoons… Its certainly fitting….. And where is Jay? I guess having all this supposed followers is a way to show his bosses he has a following. Even if it is so few…..
.
.
.
.
Dang You figured it out!
tee hee hee
JeffS
January 17th, 2013
10:51 am
So, no way a group of dedicated individuals using small arms can stand up to the military might of our government???
You might want to check with the Vietnamese; they seemed to do a pretty darn good job back in the 60’s.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:51 am
larry
It do get dark in them rabbit holes -
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
10:51 am
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
10:44 am
I’m beginning to beleive that all these supposed posters are really Jay: Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes, Jamvet, Paul, Granny Godzilla, TaxPayer
Notice how they don’t ever post together or even acknowledge each other… Even so their new name is the Bookman Buffoons… Its certainly fitting….. And where is Jay? I guess having all this supposed followers is a way to show his bosses he has a following. Even if it is so few…..
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wow, ANOTHER one who suffers from delusions. Considering I have actually MET and partied with several of these people (including Kam) I think this new idea of yours is as false as all the other ones you post.
As to where is Jay? Scroll through the blog. Look for the posts that are highlighted in grey, those are Jays, they say “Jay’ by them. It takes second to find them. Try it and see what you come up with lol.
BTB
January 17th, 2013
10:51 am
One of the keystones of a functional constitutional republic is an elightened electorate. Scroll through here, starting with the article’s title, and you will see we are doomed.
53%'er
January 17th, 2013
10:51 am
And yet again, this article comes down to an opinion, not fact. You have used your opinion to interpret words of someone else. Bookman, you never provide facts, simply state your opinion on a matter by camouflaging it as someone of note’s words. Your word and articles are biased, and I would expect nothing less of the power hungry Left that wants it 100% their way or everyone else is a racist, un-American, un-tolerant, wealthy 1%’er. All we ask is that you not lie and spread propaganda while using a far superior individual’s words and spinning them to be your own.
indigo
January 17th, 2013
10:51 am
SouthernGent
Looks like you’re another brilliant example of Christian Academy schooling.
td
January 17th, 2013
10:51 am
Jay
January 17th, 2013
9:23 am
“The .223 is not a man slayer as the false statements from the fear mongering media reports. It is .001 inches bigger than a .22. Really???? A man slayer???? C’mon man, get your facts straight.”
Yes indeed. Let’s get our facts straight. Let’s begin with your absurd comparison between a .22 round and a .223 round, which demonstrates that you are either a willful liar or incompetent around firearms.
A .223 round is fired with three times the muzzle velocity of a .22 long-rifle round. Basic physics known since the time of Isaac Newton tells us that force = mass X velocity, which means the .223 round packs at least three times the punch of a .22.
So again, let’s get the facts right shall we?
Yes Jay let us get our facts straight. The AR-15 and its .223 round is way less lethal then a semi- auto 30.06 and it .30 round but the people that want to ban weapons only talk about the AR-15. The gun control people will also not define the term “assault weapon”. Why is that? Is it because the term is nothing more then a fear word and every time they try to define the term it is not based on anything more then emotion?
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:52 am
Fred, you need to keep yourself informed. We cannot always be here to help you out son.
WASHINGTON — A 16-year-old American boy killed in an Obama administration drone strike “should have [had] a far more responsible father,” Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs says in a new video released by the group We Are Change.
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda propagandist killed by a U.S. drone a year ago. But the child was killed in a separate strike some two weeks after his father was killed. Gibbs wasn’t entirely familiar with the situation, and didn’t know that al-Awlaki’s son was killed two weeks after his father was killed, a person familiar with his thinking at the time he was interviewed told HuffPost. We Are Change bills itself as a non-partisan media organization “working to expose corruption.”
zeke
January 17th, 2013
10:52 am
???? Cuba, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria give you any reason to rethink this absurd opinion??? Of course they all had outside help and arms support. You do not think that some country would supply weapons to an armed insurgency against a tyrant US government? Hopefully that NEVER happens, but, WE HAVE TO GET THE FEDERAL SOCIALIST UNDER CONTROL TO AVOID IT!!!
David
January 17th, 2013
10:52 am
Oh great, getting lectured on tyranny from the “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” crowd. Given that treason is the highest form of dissent, then why aren’t you applauding the “courage” of those who choose to be treasonous?
davidgmills
January 17th, 2013
10:52 am
I am as progressive as they come. I have been a lawyer for 35 years. I have never owned a gun nor did my parents. But there are huge problems with Jay’s analysis.
If you don’t think the 2nd amendment applies to today’s world, the remedy is to repeal it, not to judicially water it down to the point where it has lost its original intent. But repeal is not the answer.
For me, and most lawyers like me, the 2nd amendment is the anti-tyranny amendment. It is not about guaranteeing the right to hunt or having a hunting weapon or about self defense and having a gun that is ideal for protecting one’s self. It guarantees a private right for a common purpose — because that private right is necessary to achieve its common purpose.
Jay is right to argue that the 2nd amendment that if the amendment is truly an anti-tyranny guarantee, it should guarantee the citizenry right to have stinger missiles and other weapons that stop tanks and drones. We would certainly be able to more effectively overthrow a tyrannical government with such weaponry, but in the last century, many successful revolutions have occurred without them, as others here have pointed out.
But I am not one who thinks that in order to have an effective anti-tyranny amendment, we need to have assault rifles or stinger missiles in our homes. Why? Because we can have private civilian armories. The founding fathers had the equivalent of private civilian armories. Just like we don’t keep our money under our mattresses anymore, we don’t need assault weapons in our homes. We could have the equivalent of private banks — civilian armories. The government would have to be required to keep their hands off of the armories by law. And if there were civilian armories everywhere, then the threat of the government shutting enough of them down to stop a revolution in progress would not be very real. The civilian armories could also have more appropriate military weaponry — such as stinger missiles. And they could provide a place for training so that we could have a well-regulated (trained was what regulated really means in this context) militia.
And when would the citizenry know it is time that their services are required to overthrow a tyrannical government? The some way our founding fathers did. When the equivalent of a contemporary Declaration of Independence is written and signed and enough people support it.
To me this is common sense.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:53 am
compare GA to NYC – GA accepts rednecks for what they are. NYC oppresses and suppresses its homeless and garbage places. take a trip to Shea stadium and see the largest dump/flea market in America. Liberals have NOT solved poverty in their neighborhoods – simply shipped it off (segregated) it in public housing projects. where would you rather be poor – living in a single wide on an acre of land in Carroll County, orliving in a 700 square foot apt on the 30th floor of a 10 building public housing complex?
RB from Gwinnett
January 17th, 2013
10:53 am
GT Says… “RB from Gwinnett ain’t no hate here bro.”
And in the same paragraph says… “You’re just a dumb cow lost in a china shop making lots of noise”
You see, GT, liberals NEVER admit they’re haters while they spew hatred on everybody who dares disagree with them for any reason. NEVER. And while we continue to point it out to you, you apparently don’t have the gene needed to see the log in your eye no matter how many times it’s pointed out to you.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
10:53 am
Fred
How did the ribs turn out?
Greg
January 17th, 2013
10:54 am
End the war on drugs, that’s all I ask. Give me that concession and you can all the automatic rifles and weapons you want.
Declan Georgia
January 17th, 2013
10:54 am
Truly a greater weapon than any man fighting for his freedom w/ modern, semi-automatic gun(s); giving a moron a newspaper column in a rag believed primarily by the ignorant.
keith
January 17th, 2013
10:54 am
i did not defend koresh. i correct an erroneous statement made on here.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
10:54 am
JeffS — “You might want to check with the Vietnamese; they seemed to do a pretty darn good job back in the 60’s.”
You might want to pull back the curtain and see who was supplying and equipping them.
larry
January 17th, 2013
10:54 am
I’m beginning to beleive that all these supposed posters are really Jay: Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes, Jamvet, Paul, Granny Godzilla, TaxPayer
Well, my real name isnt larry, or is it ?
Unless we have a poster party for Bookman’s posters , we’ll never know who are behind these posts, will we ?
And really, just who are you ?
Jerome Horwitz
January 17th, 2013
10:55 am
Kam – Your 10:40 has been the one of the smarter posts I’ve seen today. The paranoid is stong today. Must be a bunch of disgruntled Man City fans? Or Liverpool?
Mark
January 17th, 2013
10:56 am
“Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.”
So, let me get this straight … when some wacko does something truly awful, it’s not the person that committed the offense that is to blame … it’s the guns. But when it comes to confrontation of oppression and tryanny, it’s not the guns … it’s the people. So which is it? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t give people credit for their courage to stand up for themselves without acknowledging their ability to do really horrible, evil things. You can’t condemn guns as tools of evil without merit without giving them credit for providing people the ability to defend themselves in any number of circumstances. If you can’t recognize that simple truth it makes you look like a hypocrit that will only acknowledge that which supports his argument.
indigo
January 17th, 2013
10:57 am
JeffS – 10:51
The Vietnamese had far more than just “small arms”.
Also, we fought a limited war with a limited number of our troops.
If we had waged an all out American war against them, Vietnam today would be a barren wasteland.
I guess your homeschooling doesn’t include much history.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:57 am
anybody here want to move to liberally oriented NJ? there a 1600 square foot ranch in Pine Brook, NJ – valued at $300,000 pays almost $8800 per year in property tax. Does that sound like an efficient gov’t to anybody here?
Krystal'sBalls
January 17th, 2013
10:57 am
All this tit-for-tat and hair splitting debate just make it all the more sickening as the days pass. Seriously, who needs to be addressed are the morons that are paranoid about “tyranny” and that BS and pass the paranoia onto their children. That is what produces McVeighs and CT shooters. But that is not what we want to deal with because we know who it places under the microscope. I care more about “Pookie”, “Quatavious”, and yes “Johnnie Lee” and “Jeremy” busting in my home with nefarious intent.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
10:57 am
von 10:50
What Jay referenced was Justice Scalia’s reasoning for the majority opinion,. When you wrote
““the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This indicates that regardless of the reason given for why they feel it needed, that all citizens can have any weapons they choose and that no government shall get in the way or interfere with that…I mean I am assuming you all know what the word INFRINGE means. ”
you directly contradicted him. It’s like saying “all citizens to NOT have the right to vote.”
You didn’t even use arguments from the minority opinion – which also rejected your ‘opinion.’
Yes, all people have opinions. But to be taken seriously, they ought to be based on ’something’ on his particular forum.
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
10:57 am
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:49 am
fred – your asinine idealism threshold in this disposable commentary simply indicates just how booby thou art. I guess that arrogance feeds your inferiority complex. tell me what happened to the atlanta public housing projects.
++++++++++++++++++
It’s funny when the kids try to string (what they think are) big words together and think it makes them sound smart. Unfortunately they do it incorrectly so their prose makes no sense.
I guess somehow the Atlanta housing projects (which have been torn down) are somehow, in THIS lil fellers mind, connected with the Second Amendment. I can’t wait to hear this……..
Oh yes I can. Jay leaves so the mindless trolls take over.How sad. Troll away boys, or boy, you sound the same, I think I’ll go build a computer.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:58 am
indigo is Europe today a wasteland? your emotional commentary is lacking – reality.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
10:58 am
David G
Personal injury specialty guy, right?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
10:59 am
I’ll keep it simple for you by asking how in a free and open society a polling organization could accurately gather that kind of data on firearm ownership?
How funny from the guy who constantly cited polls about elections and other matters during the election.
you are such a silly boy. Did you bother to read the links and the links cited by the Brady Campaign to support those claims. You have yet to cite any evidence to support your claim other than pulling it out of your butt (crowded in there I bet)
Mama Says
January 17th, 2013
10:59 am
Jay the facts that you mention are indeed facts and I have argued them myself, as a con. However the fact is also true that reasoned thinkers cannot rely on something being old an out of date as a reason for automatic invalidation of any amendment. Would liberals like the next republican president to use the same logic ? I believe based on Obama’s position an executive order banning abortions would be in order. What about womens sufferage can we modify the 19th amendment ? Since its a given that we all have the right to vote. I think not !
Proper constitutional law must be followed to change the constitution and nobody can argue that editing any amendment is not changing it. While it is true that the US government could easily eradicate opposition standing toe to toe it is not true that armed opposition has not and is not working all around the world. No modern rebellion confronts the governments forces head on, and I might add that tactics that followed that thinking changed even in our own rebellion. The colonies changed the tactic of standing in a field directly across from the British when it became apparent that we would be destroyed. As a matter of fact the British complained that the rebellion was being led by uncivilized people due to the fact we would not stand in formation and fight fair. Now this became more usful when Washington’s army became more trained,advance and armed, but it did not start that way.
I do not support opposition to the government which allows armed conflict against our own, however the fact remains that todays mindset of ignoring law simply because we dont find it resonable is not how it works.
If changes need to be made to any amendment then the president should put those changes forth and they should be ratified by the states, its simple !
I do have a more nuainced concervative argument that deals directly to your point though. Since you mention that only the armed forces have acess to the modern weapons of war what, how does the national guard play in this ? Isnt the guard controlled by the states ? does an old outdated 2nd amendment forbid the guard from possessing these weapons ? Can a govenor refuse to send his/her guard against the people ? Can the guard itself be the force behind a rebellion ?
Where does federal law stop if we change the 2nd amendment / constitution ?
one more point, I am certain that a reporter somewhere in the world wrote that armed opposition to Britain was suicide by the colonials since British was th emost advanced army in the world at that time, Are you glad that the voices of reason were ignored back then ? Had they not been you may not be writing anything in any paper.
lets just follow the law, thats all I am saying
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
11:00 am
JeffS
January 17th, 2013
10:51 am
So, no way a group of dedicated individuals using small arms can stand up to the military might of our government???
You might want to check with the Vietnamese; they seemed to do a pretty darn good job back in the 60’s.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Wow, really? You mean with those Russian and Chinese supplied artillery, morrars, Anti Aircraft missiles and Anti aircraft guns? The Soviet supplied mines and such. You mean with their Soviet MIG’s?
Wow, the stupid……… it BURNS!!!!!!!!!!!
Kam: the ribs were awesome.
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:00 am
glad i could teach you about the Americans killed by obamas drones Fred. Funny tho, most people already knew about it.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
11:01 am
I’m as progressive as they come and that’s why I can tell all of you that it is your God-given right to take up arms against this repressionist Obama regime and force him to pass legislation outlawing the killing of our innocent sperm. Yessirrrreeeee!
Come on cons. Try to be more entertaining. Is Rush on potty break or something and you guys just can’t come up with anything on your own while he’s away.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
11:01 am
Greg
“End the war on drugs, that’s all I ask. ”
Based on many of the posts, the war on drugs has been a colossal failure.
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
11:01 am
@Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:48 am
uh huh is one of those snarky butt holes that frequently got beat up in school. diarrhia of the mouth without much substance behind it. but, it makes him feel good. bleeding heart and all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YOU hear your own inner voices with great clearness.
And YOU live by what YOU hear.
People like YOU become crazy… or they become a LEGEND
IN THEIR OWN MIND.
DON’T judge what I say…..
JUDGE my motivation because of what you SAY.
john
January 17th, 2013
11:01 am
Some people, including this communist scumbag that writes for this rag of a newspaper and penned this column has never read the Federalist Papers, nor have they read the Declaration of Independence.
Ya’ll want to worship at the holy church of government? Go ahead.
Dee
January 17th, 2013
11:02 am
Thank you for a common sense analysis. I am so sick of the NRA fear mongering.
von
January 17th, 2013
11:02 am
@Paul: it was BASED on the guys that WROTE the 2nd AMENDMENT. Unless that amendment got overturned when I wasnt looking I am pretty sure that supersedes ANYTHING Jay mentioned in his diatribe, supersedes anything Scalia has ever said or wrote.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
11:03 am
stands for decibel: where is your budget surplus to do this new spending?
Our government doesn’t need a budget surplus to spend. If it did, we’d never have purchased anything throughout most of our nation’s history.
Anyway, I’m just addressing the ASSumption posted earlier that we libruls opposed voting ID. I am totally for issuing free passports for all of our citizens. I actually wasn’t kidding about that.
Veteran Observer
January 17th, 2013
11:04 am
The president is the one committing Treason! 4 years ago and in a few days, he took an oath to obey and enforce the Constitution of the US! He doesn’t have the leeway to agree with parts of it and act against other parts! His using the justice department to advance his own political views has already been challenged by the courts and this is another example of his ignorance and inability to lead! Yes an armed citizenry is a deterrent to tyranny and so is a conscientious military. With massive drawdowns in the military, reserve and guard units far outnumber regular forces and these citizen soldiers will never fire on their neighbors and friends! There is a good balance with this combination of deterrents to tyranny, and it keeps the president and our other leaders talking instead of acting dictatorially! A book by Tom Kratman, A State of Disobedience should be mandatory reading in our high school government and civics classes! The president needs to remember that he governs with the consent of the people and he should represent all the people and not just his elitist academic friends!
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
11:04 am
Must be a bunch of disgruntled Man City fans? Or Liverpool?
Nope, Arsenal – they are after all “The Gunners.”
Just read this a.m. that Pep Guardiola is taking the reins at Bayern München starting this summer. He had been rumored to manage The Blue Lions after Rafa’s interimship ended. I think I like Rafa, so I would be happy to see him stay.
I see that you evil Red Devils drew Real Madrid and “The Special One” for the next round in ECL. Ought to be a good match-up.
Fly-On-The-Wall
January 17th, 2013
11:05 am
I know this will come very late in this discussion but I heard something that struck home about this gun discussion.
Someone on one of the politican talk shows made the following statement (I’m paraphrasing a bit): “The NRA believes that we need to add more places where guns should be allowed. Look at all of the places that we currently allow guns. Are we any safer then we were before this was allowed? Gun violence is still very high in this country so will we be any safer if we allow guns to be carried any/everywhere?”
So that’s the question to the NRA people – are we really any safer with all of the places guns can be currently carried and will we be any safer by adding additional locations? The metrics nation-wide don’t seem to say that we will be.
ahsoisee
January 17th, 2013
11:05 am
This article is straight from the garbage coming from the White House. We are in the process of being taken over by the Islamist doctrines of control by the sword (force), We have an Islamist president and the next step is his entrance into the one-world government where Islamists are trying to take over the world through this new setup.
It is not treason when you try to defend your country and its constitution from those who want to take over your country and change its constitutions and laws to match ifs own agenda. Yes, the citizens of our country have a right to defend the take-over of our country.
We have seen that the elections are fixed and there is no way to vote for the preferred leaders as the machine has it fixed so that the only way to defend ourselves is to keep ourselves armed so we can resist the takeover by the evil elements of the world.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
11:05 am
Fred ™
Wow, ANOTHER one who suffers from delusions. Considering I have actually MET and partied with several of these people (including Kam) I think this new idea of yours is as false as all the other ones you post.
As to where is Jay? Scroll through the blog. Look for the posts that are highlighted in grey, those are Jays, they say “Jay’ by them. It takes second to find them. Try it and see what you come up with lol.
Dang Fred… I forgot to mention you…. I’m sure in your head your probably sitting with all these people right now…..
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:05 am
Liberals need to educate themselves.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
11:06 am
Veteran Observer
In this matter HE IS most certainly representing the people.
You wasted a whole bunch of words.
RGB
January 17th, 2013
11:07 am
He starts out:
“According to some…”
Ah, those pesky Founding Fathers–now relegated to “some”.
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
11:07 am
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
10:35 am
RW Extreme, so you are saying that the 2d amendment requires a “declaration” before remedies can be undertaken? And how many must support? Let’s recall that generally only 1/3 of the colonists supported revolution.
Someone had asked under what circumstances would it be ok for a Revolution. I suggested the DOI. Or it could be a Ft. Sumter type scenario.
you can't fix stupid or Democrats or liberals
January 17th, 2013
11:09 am
“To conquer a nation you first must disarm the citizens” Adolf Hitler
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
11:09 am
Uh Huh….Nonsensical Idea:
Nice name change.. But anyway I’m actually a thinker… Unlike most on the left… Consider that very very few people in the bright red state of Georgia think the way Bookman does where would you people come from?
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
11:09 am
Kam and Fred
CC has a sad that y’all didn’t invite him to the bar.
He could have been your DD.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
11:09 am
Give it up, Fred. That Christian Conservative has done figgered it out. We has been outed.
RB from Gwinnett
January 17th, 2013
11:09 am
Krystal, “Seriously, who needs to be addressed are the morons that are paranoid about “tyranny” and that BS and pass the paranoia onto their children. ”
We know, Krystal. We get it. You only want us around to pay for all the crap you want. And then you want us to shut up and like it. I’ve got bad news for you Krystal. We’re sick of it and we do not like you. We have no interest in singing Kumbaya with you. You cannot steal what others have worked for, mock them, and expect them to act like it’s ok. Get it through your head.
David
January 17th, 2013
11:09 am
“Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.”
That is earily similar to ‘guns don’t kill, people do’.
Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!
January 17th, 2013
11:09 am
Kieth,
You keep bringing up the Viet Nam conflict as a reason for our right to bear arms here. You are obviously very young, or very ill informed by what happened. As a Viet Nam combat veteran, I’m dismayed at your words…and I’m amazed that Scout hasn’t put you straight. Let me do it. We fought two kinds of enemies there. the NVA, North Vietnamese Army, and the farmer fighter known as the Viet Cong. The former was Mostly Chinese trained and were very capable. The Cong were capable too, added with damned devious. But with this, it wasn’t those two that whipped us. It was our own government heaping rules upon rules for combat upon us. We were never allowed off the leash to fight the way we could win. Your argument doesn’t hold water.
Get Over It Jay
January 17th, 2013
11:11 am
Jay – Whether it is an inconvenient truth or not, the US Constitution make provison for personal gun ownership rights, all of your “treason” and “armed revolt” hyperbole aside. If you would like, please lead the charge to amend the Constitution, otherwise please continue to exercise your First Amendment rights and opine away.
williebkind
January 17th, 2013
11:11 am
“Someone IS going to snap.”
The last two massive murders were done by liberals. I guess you guys keep waiting for someone who calls themselves conservative to commit such an act.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
11:11 am
OK, the Obama Recovery calls.
Time to leave the GOP’s Impotent Army and faketriots hurling their impotent insults at America.
Kick ass, libs!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_jHY1CXK0I
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
11:11 am
@Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
10:57 am
anybody here want to move to liberally oriented NJ? there a 1600 square foot ranch in Pine Brook, NJ – valued at $300,000 pays almost $8800 per year in property tax. Does that sound like an efficient gov’t to anybody here?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does New Jersey have to do with this??????
IRISH PROVERB
Drink is the curse of the land.
It makes PADDY O fight with his neighbor.
It makes him shoot at his landlord and it makes him miss.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
11:12 am
So that’s the question to the NRA people – are we really any safer with all of the places guns can be currently carried and will we be any safer by adding additional locations? The metrics nation-wide don’t seem to say that we will be.
Cue the “Gun Free Skool Zones Didn’t Protect the Skool so FAILY FAIL!” crew in 3…2…1…
(do any of those guys know what “gun free zones” are actually set up to accomplish? Here is a hint: they weren’t intended, AFAIK, to simply scare lunatics from shooting people with the power of their awesome signage.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!
January 17th, 2013
11:12 am
Veteran Observer…
When that day comes, I hope you are out in front leading the charge. I doubt it, but I hope so…
risk
January 17th, 2013
11:12 am
“If you want to rejuvate that aspect of the Second Amendment, you have to be willing to grant private citizens access to fully automatic weapons, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers, etc. And it’s not going to happen.”
You do know that private citizens can in fact own all of those things you mentioned right? It’s just regulated under the National Firearm Act.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
11:13 am
von
“Unless that amendment got overturned when I wasnt looking I am pretty sure that supersedes ANYTHING Jay mentioned in his diatribe, supersedes anything Scalia has ever said or wrote.”
Scalia’s title is “Justice.” He got that ’cause he’s part of this thing called the Supreme Court. The Constitution refers to it as part of the Judicial Branch. It’s duties include settling controversies, like interpretations of the Constitution. It’s what they do.
So when Justice Scalia authors an opinion, and that opinion results in a majority decision, the majority decision becomes law.
Even if a bunch of ordinary people don’t like it.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
11:13 am
valued at $300,000 pays almost $8800 per year in property tax.
That’s what the market bears. Why do you hate the free market? Why do you embrace Marxism?
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:14 am
Kieth,
You keep bringing up the Viet Nam conflict as a reason for our right to bear arms here. You are obviously very young, or very ill informed by what happened. As a Viet Nam combat veteran, I’m dismayed at your words…and I’m amazed that Scout hasn’t put you straight. Let me do it. We fought two kinds of enemies there. the NVA, North Vietnamese Army, and the farmer fighter known as the Viet Cong. The former was Mostly Chinese trained and were very capable. The Cong were capable too, added with damned devious. But with this, it wasn’t those two that whipped us. It was our own government heaping rules upon rules for combat upon us. We were never allowed off the leash to fight the way we could win. Your argument doesn’t hold water.
So you think that obama would uleash the military on your fellow American citizens in order to win? Had the war you fought been right here against Americans would you follow orders?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
11:15 am
Dang Fred… I forgot to mention you…. I’m sure in your head your probably sitting with all these people right now…..
I am now Fred too?
Does that mean I get to drink his bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue?
Recon 0311 2533
January 17th, 2013
11:15 am
It would seem based on what appears to be reluctance in the Senate to take any significant action on Obama’s proposal to ban certain firearms and ammunition a dead issue for additional gun control. That leaves the executive actions mostly taken from NRA recommendations. I think it will be a test of Obama’s leadership as well as his sincerity to protect children by how well he does on following through with these executive actions.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
11:16 am
williebkind
January 17th, 2013
11:11 am
“Someone IS going to snap.”
The last two massive murders were done by liberals.
.
.
.
.
Really?
Proceed williebkind, proceed.
the northern alliance (afganistan, circa 1980)
January 17th, 2013
11:18 am
Scalia aside and admitedly we had a few side winders from your CIA, our limited weaponry did quite well against the Soviet army…”Blunt” speech is good, blunt mind is not….Seems that that libian fellow had lots of “sophisticated ” weaponary..wonder what he thinks….???? Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it…..
Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!
January 17th, 2013
11:19 am
Kieth,
I said nothing about PRESIDENT Obama unleashing troops on our people. I called you out for your ignorant statements. If you are so scared of our president, I suggest you dig your hidy hole and dive in. It’s only four more years you have to be scared. Get a grip son.
Paul
January 17th, 2013
11:20 am
Pleasant weekend, all -
(and for all the rest who are part of I am You and You are Me and We are all Together – hang tough!)
curious
January 17th, 2013
11:20 am
There are some delusional posters here today.
Never would have imagined how many Constitutional Scholars there are in Georgia and posting here.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
11:21 am
Granny Godzilla
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
11:22 am
Kam
XO XO XO
Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!
January 17th, 2013
11:22 am
KIETH,
“So you think that obama would uleash the military on your fellow American citizens in order to win? Had the war you fought been right here against Americans would you follow orders?”
If I were a member of the military and my Commander In Chief told me to fight members of my country who were committing acts of insurrection, the answer is a most emphatic YES!
Reality
January 17th, 2013
11:22 am
There is no reasoning with most con repubs. They use no real logic. Most of them cannot even explain why they believe what they believe.
If they do make an attempt, all they can do is repeat cliche remarks they may have heard on talk radio or on FOX news.
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
11:23 am
@williebkind
January 17th, 2013
11:11 am
“Someone IS going to snap.”
The last two massive murders were done by liberals. I guess you guys keep waiting for someone who calls themselves conservative to commit such an act
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
According to the film, ‘The Life of David Gale’, with Kevin Spacey, and kate Winslet.
One of the points made in it, was that most of those deranged killers were Republicans.
I wonder how much trueth there is to it. It’d certainly seem so on the surface.
Goldie
January 17th, 2013
11:24 am
I’m still waiting for all these domestic-terrorism supporters and assault weapons-lovers here on Jay’s blog to renounce their U.S. citizenship and follow thru with their promises to “secede” from the Union after Our President was re-elected in 2012 — so what are y’all waitin’ on???
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
11:24 am
Granny Godzilla
Next door at Cynthia’s, you and I were accused many times of being her.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
11:25 am
Northern Alliance, were you trying to demonstrate the effectiveness of your opium products?
rightwingextreme
January 17th, 2013
11:25 am
Butch Cassidy (I)
January 17th, 2013
10:30 am
keith – “but bookman wants to protect tyranny by disarming us.”
I’ve got $10,000 says that no one will take away your guns or make you turn them in. You in?
diane feinstien, gov cuomo for starters. you can make those checks payable to rightwingextreme.
Peadawg
January 17th, 2013
11:27 am
“Next door at Cynthia’s, you and I were accused many times of being her.”
That’s b/c you were the about the only 2 people on Cynthia’s blogged that liked and supported her.
Erwin's cat
January 17th, 2013
11:27 am
I’m Spartacus.
I am the night rider!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3xjSH62aP4
Banderson
January 17th, 2013
11:28 am
What’s with all the fake Hitler quotes? Also, the quote from the person who was supposedly the dean of Chicago’s law school is as real as Manti Te’o’s girlfriend.
Devil's Advocate
January 17th, 2013
11:28 am
You know, I consider myself pretty moderate. I was raised in Democratic family but back in the day that didn’t mean you were extremely liberal. To be honest, when I reflect on my upbringing, it was very conservative and that includes firearms in the household, working to earn a good living (meaning living within your means, not being defined exclusively by your income as there are no rich people in my family history), and personal responsibility. However, while my father recognized the importance of the NRA, he was not a big supporter of them. I myself as an adult do not even own a firearm.
That said, I think this column is off today. Somehow, Jay is suggesting that supporters of the Second Amendment have defined it to mean citizens need to have equal access to military might. That is a very immature position and I’m pretty surprised Jay would lean on it. The right to keep and bear arms is pretty simple. You can own weapons. I don’t recall Second Amendment supporters asking for access to nuclear warheads or Patriot missiles, although a few might want to take out drones.
As for revolutions and revolts, they are what they are and it’s not up to people like Jay to say what may or may not happen going forward. America is no immune to political unrest and it is quite arrogant to suggest such. Look what happened in England last year with all the riots over something politically simple. And we’re supposed to model our society’s tolerance of violence after them? Please…
Yes, the US military is technologically more advanced than a militia of citizens. That doesn’t change the fact that being shot is being shot. The number of bullets and the rate of fire quickly become irrelevant after being hit.
Jay also ignores the human element. Who makes up the US military? It’s not about the leaders, the men and women under command can choose sides you know. At one point, Jay suggests that there will never be a reason for a revolt then he goes on to suggest that if the military ever came into conflict with citizens that it wouldn’t be a contest. Can’t have it both ways. What if members of the military defect? You think the war in the Middle East is difficult, you really think air strikes will work on US soil? It would be a ground war and sides would quickly even out as I would assume many military personnel would side with their family and friends over the chain of command. Members of the military are not mindless.
Jay, you do bring up valid points in and of themselves, but those points don’t land where you want them to in regard to the Second Amendment and treason. Treason is not exclusive to common citizens as our elected officials are also subject to commit treason. It is a 2-way street; don’t forget that important point.
View from a Brit
January 17th, 2013
11:29 am
It’s appropriate that each of you should have a gun.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
11:29 am
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
11:24 am
Granny Godzilla
Next door at Cynthia’s, you and I were accused many times of being her
.
.
.
.
And we were both flattered…..
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
11:30 am
I am the night rider!
You are David Hasselhoff?
Brother, I don’t think I’d a told that.
Real Scootter
January 17th, 2013
11:30 am
Next door at Cynthia’s, you and I were accused many times of being her.
If memory serves me correctly,you have been accused of it here at Jay’s too.
Oscar
January 17th, 2013
11:32 am
In Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanstan our military was unable to win a military victory over people with nothing except small arms and home made bombs.
On the other hand, in Egypy, India and other places in the last century governments have been overthrown by non violent demonstrations.
Changes were made in the US in the sixties with non violence.
I would chose the non violence. Seems a lot less destructive and bloody, and just as effective.
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:32 am
if one fights to preserve the Constitution its not insurrection. its patriotism. Too bad the European Jews didnt have the means to fight the Nazis but they had no right to bear arms. No NRA to protect their rights. And millions of jews were slaughtered as a result. Is that what you want here?
Fly-On-The-Wall
January 17th, 2013
11:33 am
Williebking – do you think that everyone who carries a gun or commits a crime is a liberal? Seems that way so you can justify your arguments in your mind.
Reality
January 17th, 2013
11:33 am
Meth doesn’t kill people. People do.
Cigarettes don’t kill people. People do.
Hey! This works for everything!!!
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:34 am
Based on the comments made on here from the left its obvious they would cheer on a govt that would exterminate those who voice opposing views.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 17th, 2013
11:34 am
northern alliance: “Scalia aside and admitedly we had a few side winders from your CIA, our limited weaponry did quite well against the Soviet army…”
One very important aspect of this debate that has gone completely unremarked, including in the endlessly cited, boring example of Hitler’s gun laws, is the issue of paramilitary groups in general, groups which are growing in our age and which were very important in Germany, to name one example, in the period after WWI, i.e. in the Weimar era. This question needs to be discussed in more detail in its historical context to bring into view another critical aspect of the gun controversy.
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:36 am
Have any of you anti-gun zealots place gunfree zone signs in front of your homes yet? if not, why not? Dont you want everyone to know how strongly you feel about it?
Oscar
January 17th, 2013
11:36 am
Keith – Jews in Germany were a small minority. The majority of Germans could have overthrown Hitler but didn’t.
There were not enough Jews to protect themselves.
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
11:36 am
Granny Godzilla is a figment of Cynthia’s imagination but
Kamchak was banned by Cynthia while he was being
namejacked.
Buzz Belle
January 17th, 2013
11:37 am
There are some really, really delusional, scary people on this blog and I get the feeling they own guns. What happen to common sense? I said yesterday and although I haven’t read all 6 pages of this blog, the truth is the 2nd Amendment was written so “a” tyrannical government could not run over its citizens. Scalia is correct in this case. Unless our citizens have nuclear weapons, missles or the like, that whole amendment thing flew the coop a long, long time ago. Everybody needs to calm down. For the gun people, how many and type of guns will you be allowed to own if this becoms law? Yep, you can still kill your deer, duck, bear, whatever. You can still protect your family and home, you just can’t have an assault rifle that will kill your neighborhood. Get it now?
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:37 am
There were not enough JEWS WITH GUNS to protect themselves.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
11:37 am
the quote from the person who was supposedly the dean of Chicago’s law school is as real as Manti Te’o’s girlfriend.
Ouch.
Goldie
January 17th, 2013
11:38 am
So, again what is the purpose of civilians owning military-style weaponry???
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
11:38 am
Kamchak was banned by Cynthia while he was being
namejacked.
Just once, and however she did it I wasn’t affected.
Oscar
January 17th, 2013
11:39 am
Keith – You are only a patriot if you win. Like George Washington and the other rebels against the government.
If you lose you are considered a traitor – Robert E. Lee is considered a traitor by people north of Virginia.
Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!
January 17th, 2013
11:39 am
OSCAR,
Kieth is a troll, it’s best to just ignore him…
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
11:39 am
@Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
11:09 am
Uh Huh….Nonsensical Idea:
Nice name change.. But anyway I’m actually a thinker… Unlike most on the left… Consider that very very few people in the bright red state of Georgia think the way Bookman does where would you people come from?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don’t worry about my name. Its not what you call me..but what I answer to.
IF..IF you were a thniker you would know that there are a LOT of
people who THINK LIKE JAY.
Georgia Political Parties:
Georgia Democratic Party
Georgia Republican Party
Libertarian Party of Georgia
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:40 am
Oscar, Amazon.com sells gunfree zone signs. Why not get one to display outside your home? It would really show how committed you are to your cause.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
11:40 am
“To conquer a nation you first must disarm the citizens” Adolf Hitler
“To enthrall wingnuts you first must provide fake Hitler quotes.”
–Adolf “TJ” Hitler
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
11:41 am
keith — “if one fights to preserve the Constitution its not insurrection. its patriotism.”
Then why aren’t you “fighting” *now?*
If your rights are under attack, as you appear to believe, why haven’t you taken up arms already and begun to ‘fight back?’
Do you actually have the courage of your convictions?
Goldie
January 17th, 2013
11:41 am
Next thing we know, the assault weapons supporters will be promoting everyone to obtain plutonium and defending the right to create dirty bombs — where does it end with you wingnuts???
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:42 am
So, again what is the purpose of civilians owning military-style weaponry???
the people using them to protect their property during the LA Riots could give you a really good answer.
Reich Wingers always wrong
January 17th, 2013
11:42 am
The Founders of this Republic were experienced, sophisticated political men. They did not create government at the mercy of insurrectionists. The immediate purpose for writing a constitution in 1787 was to create a strong central government which had the capacity, among others, to suppress the numerous rebellions (Shays’s, the most famous) that cropped up in the chaotic aftermath of the American Revolution. The armed populace language the gun lobby quotes from that period to support its doctrine describes the 18th century militia. The militias were commanded by state governors. “Suppress insurrections” was almost invariably paired with “repel invasions” to describe the functions of the militia. In context, the original language is clear that the militiamen were armed for the State not against it.
Partisay
January 17th, 2013
11:42 am
Based on the comments made on here from the left its obvious they would cheer on a govt that would exterminate those who voice opposing views.
Wow, Keith….exterminate?? can you give us some examples of those comments you’ve read today that would make you think that?
Oscar
January 17th, 2013
11:42 am
Keith – I have five guns in the house. That would be false advertising.
TiredOfIt
January 17th, 2013
11:42 am
I have guns and my neighbors have guns, but I have never heard any of them spew this NRA paranoid propaganda crap. It must really suck to be you all.
Fly-On-The-Wall
January 17th, 2013
11:43 am
Some here seem to think that any changes to an amendment is akin to changing the Bible. I don’t feel that way at all. I think we can make common sense changes/updates to amendments without taking away the rights of the people. No one here is suggesting that ALL guns be taken away, only that the weapons used in most of the recent mass shootings be controlled along with the large magazines used at those same mass shootings. I do not see that as an infringement on my 2nd Amendment rights. I can still buy a gun or as many guns as I want but I would not be able to buy THAT type of weapon or a magazine that extents beyond what the standard mag gives.
Bottom line is I can still buy guns & ammo.
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:43 am
Anyone thats anti-gun and does not have a gunfree zone sign outside their home is a hypocrite.
GT
January 17th, 2013
11:43 am
The Waffle House gang always comes to mind in these discussions. A table of old, dimwitted, cranky men who seemed to have never traveled at the speed of the river of life: publically meeting and plotting the assassination of judges, the demolition of courthouses as if they were in a Kremlin conference room as opposed to a North Georgia slope house.
What would make these undraftable nonsuperhero types think a little dynamite there, an assassination here and wala we have won a revolution against their own country. I venture it was FOX. The ever unfactual news network that makes our country sound weak enough that a child with a cap gun could pull a Stg. York imitation and rein as ruler of all he sees.
When caught this gang that could not shoot straight got a too late lesson on who the enemy really was. It was them, and the supposed enemy the U.S. government was nothing like the description given them by their FOX reporters. Now their defense was we were just full of hot air we weren’t going to do anything. I guess what they should have done is called the NRA for a spokesman to explain the government the real situation not what our lying eyes said it was.
Scuba Steve
January 17th, 2013
11:45 am
I try so hard to come here and not insult many of you backwoods, red-clay Georgia idiots.
Then I read the comments. You just make it so easy. I try so dang hard guys!
And I’m from Texas. That ought to tell you something.
Oscar
January 17th, 2013
11:45 am
Corbin – Will do. Should have picked up on that myself.
Partisay
January 17th, 2013
11:45 am
And Keith, is that in any way like President Bush’s “free speech zones” that were put out of eye sight of him, so if you wanted to stand and hold a sign against his policies, he would never see them? Kinda like that? Except without the extermination?
Dave
January 17th, 2013
11:45 am
Do you really think the member of the United States Military would turn on the citizens of this country? As retired vet I can assure you the majority would not – therefore a lot of military weapons would be available to the citizens.
mx200394
January 17th, 2013
11:46 am
Now what the writer does not understand, the people of the USA can in fact own armored tanks, rocket launchers, Grenade launchers, Fully Auto Rifles, Fully Auto Hand guns, Semi Auto Rifles, and Hand Guns, Bullet proof armor, Combat Helmets, Combat Uniforms, All the tools of the trade to fight off any military there is. I do not own guns to protect my home, I own my armory to protect my family, friends, and community from treats from outside or inside this country. I do highly doubt anyone would invade our country like Germany did with Poland, but I do believe that no one in the USA knows what they want for our country. Removing or Disarming America would start a war with gun owners and the UN (Who is the only ones who will be call to aid the Government if it is attacked by the people. If you do not believe me ask your own Armed Forces who they would protect first, the people or the government if they fought. I included.) This war would in fact rein anarchy because we all have different ideas of what the country should be, even I. I will also say, I refuse to disarm because if a armed force wishes to treat THE PEOPLE badly I am more than willing to lay down my life to protect and preserve the freedoms our country was founded on for my child, and the other children of this country, for freedom is a gift and from being in countries like Russia, England, Poland, Afghanistan, and Somalia. I will say our government is starting to act a lot like Russia, and Somalia. Where the government controls people and the people do not know what they want from the government. I am for the people, the government is only meant to protect my rights and tell the ones who do not know their rights what they mean. Amendments are meant to protect the people. Removing our fire power shows they do not want us to be protected from Morther Land America.
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:47 am
i happen to own numerous so-called assault weapons. They must be defective, they havent assaulted anyone.
Scuba Steve
January 17th, 2013
11:47 am
Keith — I’m anti-smoking. Don’t have a “Smoke Free Zone” sign outside my house.
Dang I’m a hypocrite! How many teeth do you have?
John Daly
January 17th, 2013
11:47 am
Jay, you base your argument on a partially false assumption. The first line of the holding in the case reads ” 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” The finding was not based on the potential purpose of overthrowing the government but found it to be a fundamental right within the Constitution. The term fundamental right has specific meaning within law as a basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference.
BOB FROM ACCOUNT TEMPS
January 17th, 2013
11:48 am
So the bigger questions jay: will law enforcement and the military take up arms against the tax paying citizens in an effort by the government to thwart the constitution? Will they go door-to-door to disarm the public when the public refuses to surrender their megar weapons?
Goldie
January 17th, 2013
11:48 am
“Anyone thats anti-gun and does not have a gunfree zone sign outside their home is a hypocrite.”
Who is “anti-gun” here, keith? Are you unable to comprehend the English language when we keep repeating “no military-style weapons” should sold to civilians???
LOL– Good grief… too many loonies with assault weapons in America today!
kayaker 71
January 17th, 2013
11:48 am
So, we are to believe that the next time a crazy dude or two kicks in your front door and gains access to your home that we are supposed to “reason” with him, invite him and his pals in for a beer, offer up your wife or your daughter …… any number of things that liberals dwell on. No thanks…. I’ll keep my 12 Ga and, as Aquagirl is so quick to point out, will stroke it if necessary to put as many holes into that animal as humanly possible. Liberals operate on the premise that these animals have a conscience, some sense of fairness. Nothing could be further from the truth. They prey on the old, women, children and those not able to defend themselves. If most of these animals knew that there was a 12 ga right behind that door they are about to kick in, there would be many fewer home invasions. So liberals, if you don’t want a gun, don’t buy one. Just keep your hands off of mine.
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
11:49 am
The 3 million armed NRA members are quite an army. Should
the government expect them to take up arms if the Feinstein
bill passes ?
Real Scootter
January 17th, 2013
11:50 am
If your rights are under attack, as you appear to believe, why haven’t you taken up arms already and begun to ‘fight back?’
He plans to do that JHM.Right after he is finished terrorizing y’all first!
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:50 am
i dont care if you dont think i should have that type of gun. I do. period!
Fly-On-The-Wall
January 17th, 2013
11:52 am
I get so tired of hearing how bad our government is but yet these same people vote into office the very representative government they despise. Can’t have it both ways.
BOB FROM ACCOUNT TEMPS
January 17th, 2013
11:52 am
Goldie
January 17th, 2013
11:48 am
Are you unable to comprehend the difference between what a weapon “LOOKS LIKE” and the weapons “PERFORMANCE” !
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:52 am
The feinstein bill will NOT pass. Even many Democrats oppose it.
Reality
January 17th, 2013
11:52 am
Some folks like facts, data, and true statements.
In Great Britan, there has not been a mass murder in decades. In fact, there has not been a gun related death, either. No one has walked into a school and murdered children. No one has walked into a movie theater and killed dozens.
What do they do differently?
They have a ban of all guns in the Country. Even the police are not allowed guns – they use billie clubs.
Now – what can we possibly learn from this?
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
11:53 am
Sometimes I get so wrapped up in the trees I lose perspective. After browsing thru this forum today, I’ve read the following:
Hitler
Islamic President implementing scheme to kill all us infidels
The idea that the US government is behind the killing of these kids.
The bible has all the answers.
Cons are stupid
Liberals live in fantasy land
Delusional scary idiots
A high capacity gun will protect me from the LA riots
The supreme court has no idea what the 2nd amendment is all about.
Fox news sucks
Jews need more guns
Granny is a figment of Cynthia Tuckers imagination…
Just damn..
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
11:54 am
RW Extreme, so a “Fort Sumter” situation would be that the “people” secede and then its okay after withdrawing from the Union and withdrawing from the protection of the constitution to use “2d amendment remedies”? Not a very well though or well-articulated test of when 2d amendment remedies arise and when they may be used. When may say, 4 guys in the North GA/TN mountains, lawfully claim that they have 2d amendment remedies and that they may use them? I see a lot of constitution waiving and broad claims, but even Senior Digits, runs away from answering the questions with a specific test that can be stated in court as a viable right.
Jefferson
January 17th, 2013
11:54 am
Reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions under reasonable conditions unless you are a republican.
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
11:54 am
J. Daly — “Jay, you base your argument on a partially false assumption. The first line of the holding in the case reads ” 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” The finding was not based on the potential purpose of overthrowing the government but found it to be a fundamental right within the Constitution.”
Actually, it’s not, and you really should read the dissenting opinion in Heller. It points out that Scalia and the majority founded their decision on *personal opinion* and not on any language found in the Constitution itself.
The Constitution’s quite clear on the point that the public’s right to keep and bear arms is *conditional* on their membership in a “well-regulated militia,” which — if you’ll read Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is under the direct control and beck and call of Congress. It’s clear that the purpose of the militia — particularly in the absence of a standing Army, which the Founders did not want to have for any significant length of time — was to *fill in* on those defensive and protective duties that a standing Army would normally fulfill.
Of course, if anyone here would like to explain to me how the “militia” of Article 1, Section 8 is somehow different and distinct from the “militia” of the Second Amendment — and can point to language in the Constitution that supports them — I would be very interested in reading what they have to say.
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:55 am
the 4 million member NRA will soon be 5 million members. How many are in Bradys group?
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
11:55 am
The last two massive murders were done by liberals.
A decent person would apologize for posting something as beyond the pale as that.
Christian Conservative
January 17th, 2013
11:56 am
Its funny Bookman mentions treason in his tripe… Wouldn’t it be treasonous to circumvent Congress and to completely ignore the Constitution…. By the way Bookman… If someone does go ape$hit batty Oblama and the dems are the one’s you can blame…
Jefferson
January 17th, 2013
11:56 am
The NRA is ripping you scardy cats off, spend you money !!!
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
11:57 am
Stevie Ray
Sometimes I get so wrapped up in the trees …
…………………………………..
There’s your sign……
straitroad
January 17th, 2013
11:57 am
Jay, you couldn’t be more wrong. If superior weaponry trumps a determined, armed population then Iraq and Afghanistan would have certainly have a different outcome as would Vietnam.
keith
January 17th, 2013
11:57 am
Some folks like facts, data, and true statements.
In Great Britan, there has not been a mass murder in decades. In fact, there has not been a gun related death, either. No one has walked into a school and murdered children. No one has walked into a movie theater and killed dozens.
What do they do differently?
They have a ban of all guns in the Country. Even the police are not allowed guns – they use billie clubs.
Now – what can we possibly learn from this?
Here we have someone calling to ban ALL guns. Just what the left has been assuring us that noone is doing. lol
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
11:57 am
the 4 million member NRA
according to the NRA. If you believe them.
I wouldn’t trust the NRA to change a 20, let alone give me accurate membership figures.
fedup
January 17th, 2013
11:58 am
Gun manufacturers motive. Munufacturers by steel, plastic, etc. by the pound. These are less than $1 a pound. Converting them to a gun cost probably 20-30 bucks. They sell their products hundreds of dollars. I would hire the brightest mind to do a PR job to keep that profit margin. These gun nuts are nuts.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
11:59 am
Anyone thats anti-gun and does not have a gunfree zone sign outside their home is a hypocrite.
That’s just silly.
I don’t have sign, ’cause I don’t wanna advertise.
What a Mr. Silly-pants
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
11:59 am
we are to believe that the next time a crazy dude or two kicks in your front door and gains access to your home that we are supposed to “reason” with him, invite him and his pals in for a beer
Somebody please get Kayaker his pills, he’s having imaginary conversations with imaginary people again.
keith
January 17th, 2013
12:00 pm
Well I am a member and we held a local membership drive where all current members paid for new members to join. it was VERY successful. We added hundreds of new members. And thats going on across the nation.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
12:00 pm
R. Scootter — “He plans to do that JHM.Right after he is finished terrorizing y’all first!”
I LOLed
TrueDawg
January 17th, 2013
12:00 pm
You are soooowrong bookman! Are you even an american?? yes the military has more power but look in Syria to see how well that is working- you HAVE to have the people behind the military and if ALL the people revolt WE need guns to do it!!! Leave my guns alone! Let the gov protect our children with armed guards!!! Easy solution! America was founded on the people and not government again Leave MY guns alone! I am not bothering you with them-Leave them alone!
Partisay
January 17th, 2013
12:01 pm
No thanks…. I’ll keep my 12 Ga
kayaker 71 – Have you heard anyone on here, or with the administration, talk about taking shotguns?
Bill Orvis White
January 17th, 2013
12:01 pm
Since King Hussein Obama has even thought of using Executive Order to disarm the citizenry, then “his” actions are an impeachable/removable offense. There is NO argument here. There is NO justification here. END OF STORY, FOLKS!
The bigger question here is, will Congress have the guts to rightfully follow through on rightful impeachment and removal proceedings? WHEN?
Amen,
Bill
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
12:01 pm
Here we have someone calling to ban ALL guns.
Not really.
Anyway, that “someone” isn’t correct about the English police never carrying guns…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
12:01 pm
I knew Fred heard voices in his head (
) but he’s Kam, Granny and Jay too? Wow…so when he and Kam go to eat and 2 meals are ordered, who pays? And who is sleeping with Mr. Zilla?
Any chance that you’ve identified the blog name used by Miss Alabama? Don’t tell me that’s Fred too!
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 17th, 2013
12:02 pm
Reality
11:52 am
They have a ban of all guns in the Country. Even the police are not allowed guns – they use billie clubs.
Now – what can we possibly learn from this?
———————————
But, but, but
They don’t have a Kenyan, Marxist, Socialist, Black Man as as their Leader
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
12:04 pm
Anyone thats anti-gun and does not have a gunfree zone sign outside their home is a hypocrite.
Anyone that’s pro-wealth and does not have an inventory of their valuables, including their retail prices, posted on a sign outside their home is a hypocrite.
Frederick Douglass
January 17th, 2013
12:04 pm
If the Obama family refuses to leave the White House in 2017, then that’ll be the time to exercise one’s 2nd amendment rights. This president was elected by a preponderous of the electorate, he’s no dictator or tyrant, he doesn’t want to take anyone’s guns, he’s probably a guy that’s befuddled by the carnage that took place in Newtown, Aurora, or Columbine, and he’s seeking ways to curtail it.
dnha14
January 17th, 2013
12:04 pm
“Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.”
During the Revolutionary War it was people with guns that overthrew the tyranny. People alone would have been killed. Guns alone would have just laid on the ground and done nothing. The first choice should be people alone, which the founders tried vainly to accomplish. It was only after their lack of success trying to reason with the tyrant, that they picked up the guns. It was the combination of people and guns that created this great country and defeated the tyranny. I’d hate to think we would need to do it again, but that is why the 2nd Amendment is there, to ensure the First.
Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom
January 17th, 2013
12:05 pm
Hey all you cons President Obama won the election. I know it makes you mad and all but tough titty. Lots of us were mad when W took many of our freedoms away as well but we didn’t get all frothy at the mouth about it.
GT
January 17th, 2013
12:05 pm
The idea of a democracy is the democracy is the people it governs. These ideas don’t come from some imperial being but from the heart of a nation burying it’s children. Nobody is taking the second amendment away though its use is questionable in modern times, we are just tire of being the most violate country in the world by a multiply.
We had a revolution of a minority that couldn’t get their way on slavery, imagine that wanting to own other human beings and not understanding the moral issues involved. Why not make bank robbery a national pastime or rape? How does the Bible belted south always end up on the short stick of morality and then crave for a judgment day. People who believe in pro life, sponsor mass slaughter in their choice of blindness to the facts. There is no credibility in this part of the world, which leave to the conditions we find the south and have found it for centuries.
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
12:06 pm
REALITY
British REALITY isn’t our REALITY. Gun genie out of bottle for 250 give or take years. Will never be returned. This is simply our elected rubes, rushing to do something regardless how effective, simply because they feel the people need action…bad approach…not to mention the theatre of the absurd BO is conducting putting those little kids on stage which suggest any of these tactics will make them safer..
obamaSINLADEN
January 17th, 2013
12:06 pm
Start reading an NRA mag called” First Freedom” to understand the NRA. This mag will enlighten everyone on the mission of the NRA and our members. (know your” enemy” type of reading). They provide law enfocement fire arm training, fire arm training for kids,women,men ect… and more.
Mad
January 17th, 2013
12:06 pm
“Let me be blunt: That is mythological claptrap.”
History aint your strong suit is it?
Here is something for you.
Crime escslates when there is no work. EVERY mass killer in the last 2 decades has been on pshchotropic drugs.
Why don’t you rail against the bankers who debase our currency 48 billion a month and the pharma for putting out mass murder/suicide drugs?
And as for you “mythological” BS, I bet the children the FEDs murdered (10 more than the crazy at Sandy Hook)in Waco would kick you in the mouth were they alive.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
12:06 pm
They have a ban of all guns in the Country.
No. In the UK there are certain firearms that are not banned.
Jim Davis
January 17th, 2013
12:07 pm
Is it any wonder that the AJC is in a death spiral with dolts like Bookman and Luckovich as political banner waivers? They both will eventually make good, no, make that great, assistant managers at Burger King (whoops, did I just insult Burger King?).
Ben Franklin
January 17th, 2013
12:07 pm
Write this with a turkey pen, on papyrus, and then send it on a horse. That’s what they were talking about when discussing the first amendment.
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
12:09 pm
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
11:57
I have no idea what that over used comment has to do with my post excepting your feelings where ill-affected….point is if you step back and look at the opinions offered, some of our collective commentary appears silly..
I guess next time you will post “enter remarks here” or “strawman”, or possibly “sheets”..any originality in that pod of yours?
keith
January 17th, 2013
12:10 pm
Got to love this. On the Democratic Underground forums obamabots are now complaining because he raised their taxes too. One of the nuts said ” but he promised to just raise taxes on the rich, but now IM paying more. I LOVE IT!!!
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
12:11 pm
The secret is out. The government can violate the Constitution.
The government can take your guns. The government can kill you.
It is only reasonable men in government that keep that from happening.
indigo
January 17th, 2013
12:11 pm
Paddo O – 10:58
The Germans were defeated in WWII without us having to use the atom bomb.
Vietman occured much later, and we did not elect to use nukes there.
Common Sense isn't very Common
January 17th, 2013
12:12 pm
keith
January 17th, 2013
12:00 pm
Well I am a member and we held a local membership drive where all current members paid for new members to join. it was VERY successful. We added hundreds of new members. And thats going on across the nation.
————————————————–
So I guess the members you signed up were too POOR to pay their own membership eh?
Why didn’t you just write PREPAID membership cards for all the liberals in the county and claim SEE WHO WE SIGNED UP. LOL
Gafarmer
January 17th, 2013
12:13 pm
I don’t think any of the new laws will matter.Look at Columbine all of the Clinton bans were in effect at that time.Ten round magazines and no evil flash suppressors.How many did they kill?19 I think.
Laws will never stop criminals or the insane from doing things like happened in the last year.The killings at the movies and Sandy Hook.Because criminals do not obey laws.All these laws will do is make law abiding people criminals.Does that sound like the land of the free?
U5MC
January 17th, 2013
12:13 pm
All I need is a handgun to protect my family .. One Shot One Kill
-There is no need for an average citizen to have an assualt weapon. Those types of weapons are meant for warfare.
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
12:13 pm
Robert Lee – Cogito ergo zoom
January 17th, 2013
12:05 pm
Wow, so you are suggesting that since, say Bush allowed unwarranted wire taps, it’s more than OK with BO? Pretty low bar wouldn’t you agree?
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
12:14 pm
Stevie Ray
Still wrapped up in the trees I see………
Bob
January 17th, 2013
12:15 pm
Jay Said: “If the government ever loses its fear of such a revolt, the theory goes, our liberty ends and tyranny begins.
Let me be blunt: That is mythological claptrap. But like a lot of mythological claptrap, it can push weak-minded people —…”
Weak Minded?
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
— Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution, 1787
The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike. It is its natural manure.
— Thomas Jefferson
. . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formitible to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…
— Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist Paper 29
The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.
— Patrick Henry
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
— Thomas Jefferson
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
— James Madison, The Federalist No. 46
http://www.tasigh.org/kevin/firearmq.html
Quite a list of “Weak Minded People”
Noah Webster
Thomas Jefferson
Alexander Hamilton
Patrick Henry
James Madison
etc…..
Krystal'sBalls
January 17th, 2013
12:15 pm
@RB from Gwinnett
Let me be “KRYSTAL” clear when I say this to you and anyone else who thinks like you. You can’t do S*** for me. Truth be told, my household is a 28% tax bracket. Of course I know where you go with your racist rant. I’m sure it is well known by now I am BLACK American. I make no pretense about the fact that people of your spirit “do not like” me and never will. Which is why I am sure it throws some people off that I would hold the position that I do on this whole gun debate. You see, I fully understand U.S. History and the different dynamics of different people who make up this country. I wholly subscribe to the idea that people like YOU are more of a threat to me than any “tyrannical government” could ever be. Yet another reason why when you hide behind the “Second Anendment”, so do I! Lovely the way that works isn’t it?? Like I said, until the U. S. honestly addresses the real problems behind this, it will forever be in turmoil.
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
12:15 pm
Does NRA actually have 4 million members?
There you go, another important agenda controlled by the 1-2%…surprise.
Tom B
January 17th, 2013
12:16 pm
Let ME be blunt. The US military will not turn on its’ people just because Barry tells them to. Your little fantasy world would lead you to believe no revolution has overturned its’ government. But, hey, what do I know. I’m not a blogger.
Soothsayer
January 17th, 2013
12:16 pm
TURN UP THE CRAZY! Jay, this is one of the best threads of all time. Better than any FairTax thread could ever be. The Post-O-Meter is “redlining” on this one.
Little do our Fright-Wing nutjobs know that you are really an NSA, CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security operative who regularly runs these kinds of threads to identify and record the Fright-Wing nutjobs so that the black helicopters can come and pick them and take away their weapons!
getalife
January 17th, 2013
12:16 pm
These same cons allowed w to steal freedom because they were cowards of aq.
Our President knew these cowards run run their mouths.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
12:17 pm
would run.
Miss J
January 17th, 2013
12:17 pm
@ Jed E
“And the presidency is not a license to sign away constitutional rights, either, Bookman. But ‘
Wow….You have all these NRA folks talking about “thier” rights …. and yet these same folks want to change the Constitution to take away Gays from getting married….
What a joke………
Everybody wants their rights…… LOL
Bobo
January 17th, 2013
12:18 pm
YOU MISS THE FOREST FOR THE TREES
Here is the problem with your argument about firepower vs. firepower. I’m not sure anyone can call it treasonous to rebel against a government that increasingly ignores the needs of its tax-paying constituents to re-distribute income to those who refuse to work or even gain citizenship in said country. Why does anyone owe loyalty to an abusive and despotic power that doesn’t regard its citizens with enough respect to avoid running up a debt to the tune of $300,000 for each and every man, woman, and child in the land. Ultimately, normal people WILL get sick of this and have enough.
The firepower argument is irrelevant because the government will not use most of those weapons against regular citizens for the reason that local governments and state governments will be the first in the line of fire before it ever reaches the level of individual citizens. I’m fully convinced that a state like Texas will stare down Washington and refuse to blink. You can’t tell me that many military and police personnel won’t GLADLY rebel against the federal government if it means not turning on their own families and friends.
Ultimately, Washington can only enforce their laws as long as the rest of us play by their rules by our indoctrinated moral compass to be ‘good citizens’. When that gig is up, the same thing will happen here that will happen to the USSR or Nazi Germany or the same thing that happened in the Middle East and Vietnam. The lesson is the same….you CANNOT defeat a diffuse and furious enemy that has had enough of a central oppressive power. Typical military tactics don’t work if you want to maintain any sort of infrastructure, particularly in places you actually want back for the resources.
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
12:19 pm
How many of you gun owners use, in addition to your gun, other practical security precautions?
Miss J
January 17th, 2013
12:19 pm
You can’t have it both ways…’
You can’t take a stand that you’re going to make sure no one takes away your rights …but what about the rights of those folks you don’t like or those lifestyles you don’t accept…
WHAT HYPOCRITES………….
Dennis
January 17th, 2013
12:20 pm
” Around the world, governments have access to a range of weaponry that private citizens have no hope of matching or withstanding. There is simply no comparison between the brute, deadly force that a government can wield and that wielded by private citizens, individually or collectively.”
And yet, that has not stopped the CIA, nor the Pentagon, from supplying “small arms” to willing rebels in countries where the U.S. hopes to topple a government it doesn’t like and set up another dictator that it does like.
The fact is, the so-called, “Patriot Acts” (written before the GWB administration passed them, and now extended by Obama) are being wielded as much, or more, for controlling the American people as supposedly being used to protect them.
The fact is that the American news media soft-peddle, and out-right lie about, the wrong doings of the American government – in this country, and outside of it as well.
But when the American media are corporate controlled, as they are, Americans can’t expect any better.
There is more honest “fair and balanced” news on Al Jeezra than on any American media in this country.
The will of the American people and the will of the American government are not one and the same.
And the American government knows it.
While no one wants violence with guns, government control of weapons in the hands of American citzens is just another step to control them.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
12:21 pm
“I talk to the trees
But they don’t listen to me.”
– Thomas “Pardner” Jefferson
Thomas Heyward Jr
January 17th, 2013
12:21 pm
“There is simply no comparison between the brute, deadly force that a government can wield and that wielded by private citizens, individually or collectively.”
.
Actually there IS.
Federalies are generally dumb.
Intelligence and basic decency can ..and will…..prevail over brute might AND dumbness.
(see federales).
.
Buzz Belle
January 17th, 2013
12:21 pm
Uh Huh….Nonsensical Idea 11:39 am
Funny you mentioned that – I was in Buffalo for a wedding and met Brian Higgens, the democratic rep. I was introduced as a liberal fromt he state of Georgia – his reply “I didn’t know Ga had any of those”. How can the democratic party be redefined and gain it’s strenght back? This state is one of the laughing stocks of the country – I’l like to change that. Any ideas?
Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom
January 17th, 2013
12:22 pm
Stevie Ray !2:14 Wow, so you are suggesting that since, say Bush allowed unwarranted wire taps, it’s more than OK with BO? Pretty low bar wouldn’t you agree?
Nope, not what I said. There are ways to fight against things you don;t agree with. Threats of violense and armed insurrection against the elected government are bordering on treasonous.
Bill
January 17th, 2013
12:23 pm
And now the slaves ancesters have the (illagal) guns and are killing each other. How do we stop that? We don’t, it’s their culture. It’s up to them and their so called leaders to stop it.
Miss J
January 17th, 2013
12:23 pm
NRA lovers….oh oh always quoting the 2nd Amendment… but these same folks now the right to marry who ever you want is currently guranteed by our U.S. Constituion…so what do they want to do..
Amend it so Gays can’t get married…but oh hell Jim Bob..they better not take away my GUNS….
WHAT A JOKE……
Jefferson
January 17th, 2013
12:24 pm
Know it alls, the GOP flock. Stay mad, my friend.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
12:24 pm
The con kooks crawl out under their rocks for this one.
They could take your guns easily cons and you would hide under your beds.
How do I know?
Because I watched you cowards hide under your beds when w stole freedom.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
12:24 pm
And now the slaves ancesters have the (illagal)[sic] guns and are killing each other.
There’s your sign.
Juan
January 17th, 2013
12:24 pm
Jay Bookman Second Amendment is not license for treason, armed revolt
8:12 am January 17, 2013, by Jay
Hi Jay,
I am disappointed that you did not expand your topic to include the commercialzed side of presenting the 2nd amendment as an exploitable commodity. Those who think the NRA does not need to be controlled have blinders on.
Thomas Heyward Jr
January 17th, 2013
12:25 pm
And further more…………….if the Federales were so powerful…………………….why is Obama and/or Bookman tangling their respective underwear over the issue of disarming law-abiding citizens.
.
I smell a bunch of scairt rabbits.
King Obama
January 17th, 2013
12:25 pm
Why can’t we just ban all guns period!!!!
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
12:25 pm
I have the right to be free from the threat of unlimited
assault weapons in the hands of anonymous individuals.
Soothsayer
January 17th, 2013
12:26 pm
I think I’m starting to get the point the Fright-Wingers are trying to make: that even though individually, we are only armed with assault weapons, collectively we can whoop the United States government.
Does this mean I still have to pay my taxes?
Heck, if we can whoop the United States government, then our local county shouldn’t pose no threat at all.
Does that mean I don’t have to pay property taxes on my home?
godless heathen
January 17th, 2013
12:26 pm
n Great Britan, there has not been a mass murder in decades. In fact, there has not been a gun related death, either. No one has walked into a school and murdered children. No one has walked into a movie theater and killed dozens.
What do they do differently?
They have a ban of all guns in the Country. Even the police are not allowed guns – they use billie clubs.
Now – what can we possibly learn from this?
Not much except that you are a liar.
Sam
January 17th, 2013
12:26 pm
Thank you for writing and explaining that in a public forum, and the explanation that it is people who preserve liberty and not guns, spot on. Great work
getalife
January 17th, 2013
12:26 pm
The kids are watching your behavior.
The majority are watching your behavior.
The gop will never win another election.
The gop will dissolve.
Scuba Steve
January 17th, 2013
12:26 pm
LOL ancestors are killing each other? How in the heck is that possible?
Rockerbabe
January 17th, 2013
12:27 pm
JohnnyReb: “And, it’s not doing anything to stop the Obama tyranny either”. Oh please! President Obama hasn’t lied to us about WMD in order to get us into two unnecessary, immoral wars of choice for which the Congress has yet to pay the bills that have come do.
President Obama did not bail out the bankers, Bush and his ilk did. He was left a mess to clean up and he did. You don’t have to like what he has done, but at least he didn’t lie about it and has made good on his claim to get government out of the banks asap [when they completely repay the loans + interes].
Gitmo is another story; the cowards in Congress stopped him from closing that hell-hole.
He has protected Social Security, Medicare and what is left of the social safety net. He has also protected all of the unemployed from being made destitute due to the folly of the bankers.
President Obama is trying to do sensible gun control laws and as usual, the old white boys in Congress are choosing to do absolutely nothing. The only way Congress and the GOP governors are going to act responsibility, is for someone to shoot their kids and riddle the little bodies with bullets. I think that is the only way anyone in power [these days] will ever begin to understand the grief that Gabby Giffords has suffered and the families in Newtown, CT have suffered. Doing nothing is not an option.
There is NOTHING tyrannical about President Obama and his actions. He is acting on behalf of the American public that wants something done. You only call him names because he isn’t beholden to the NRA.
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
12:28 pm
Gays have the right to take up arms because they are denied
equal protection under the law.
Lt Col Razorback
January 17th, 2013
12:28 pm
Jay,
One man’s claptrap is another man’s truth.
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias.
Given our current President’s predilection to govern by exercising his authority to issue executive orders, rather than to argue his positions in the Congress and seek legislative authority to govern, I am one that understands that we might well be in an era when the apprehensions of the Founding Fathers are coming to pass. Therefore, the 2nd amendment may be more important now than it ever has been in our history, and it could be that a well-armed populace should be in existence in order to fend off an Executive Branch attempt to take away all of the freedoms granted to us by our wonderful constitution and the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms could be our only defense against that happening.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
12:29 pm
LOL ancestors are killing each other? How in the heck is that possible?
Mr. Peabody’s wayback machine.
DannyX
January 17th, 2013
12:29 pm
So when is the big uprising against the tyrannical Obama going to happen?
You gun nuts are good at shooting off at the mouth When are you going to put your ammo where your mouths are? Get off the couch, grab your guns, lets see you end the horrible tyranny. What are you waiting for? How about a second amendment solution. You’re not a bunch of hysterical phonies are you?
College football season is over, you only have 7 months until next season, better hurry!
larry
January 17th, 2013
12:29 pm
Well, i took the tank out for a ride . It rolls real good in the rain, cant wait to take it out when it snows.
BTW, anyone that would like a smushed patrol car , let me know okay.
And no, the deputy wasnt in the car. TELL ME ABOUT MY 2nd amendment rights.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
12:30 pm
Our President should be honored for listening to the majority of the American people and acted quickly.
The gop can’t compete with that.
Game over.
Oscar
January 17th, 2013
12:32 pm
Razorback – Mass non=violent demonstrations and strikes are better and more effective than armed revolt.
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
12:32 pm
Robert Lee – Cogito ergo zoom
January 17th, 2013
12:22 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly. These are the same folks who think we were behind 911, behind the school killings and other sorts of sundry and ridiculous things. We all know that the argument about rising up against a government that is becoming a threat is similar to the drama about throwing granny over a cliff…except granny I presume had no gun..
How many gun freaks drive corvettes?
Lt Col Razorback
January 17th, 2013
12:33 pm
Jay,
One man’s claptrap is another man’s truth.
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias.
Given our current President’s predilection to govern by exercising his authority to issue executive orders, rather than to argue his positions in the Congress and seek legislative authority to govern, I am one that understands that we might well be in an era when the apprehensions of the Founding Fathers are coming to pass. Therefore, the 2nd amendment may be more important now than it ever has been and it could be that a well-armed populace should be in existence in order to fend off an Executive Branch attempt to take away all of the freedoms granted to us by our wonderful constitution and the right to bear arms could be our only defense against that happening.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
12:33 pm
Bob — “Quite a list of “Weak Minded People”
Noah Webster
Thomas Jefferson
Alexander Hamilton
Patrick Henry
James Madison
etc…..”
Fortunately, none of them dictate our laws, so their personal opinions are beside the point.
Pretty much every one of our Founders disagreed with *something* in the Constitution; none of them agreed with every provision and codicil in it. Because of that, even a Founder’s personal opinion is not authoritative on the legal meaning and import of any facet of the Constitution.
Laws stand as they are written, not as any particular individual — even their *author* — might like for them to be read.
Drudge
January 17th, 2013
12:34 pm
Actually it kind of is… Keep and bear arms mainly in defense of tyranny. Don’t try to hang the second amendment over our heads when your president is doing his best to circumvent it. Let’s try this; all stick to the rules, period. I know other presidents have used executive orders extensively, but not to circumvent the constitution or make sweeping changes to hard laws – that, sir, is the definition of tyranny. Checks and balances exist for a reason – and the president laments that. It’s an annoyance to his agenda that he has labeled “obstructive” – but it is working exactly like it should.
Don’t you see the hypocrisy in you statement? Accusing law abiding people of treason when Obama violated the first sentence of his oath of office to defend the constitution of the US? It’s never treason when it’s your guy doing it I guess.
Redcoat
January 17th, 2013
12:34 pm
We have “modest” gun control now………why is our inferior weaponry feared? Guns are not the problem. Little by little…………
scubasteve
January 17th, 2013
12:34 pm
Does anybody really think that our armed forces would kill their own people? A real civil war would be state vs. state vs. federal government with armed civilians forming underground rebellions…and yes it has been proven over and over again…determined, less “state of the art” militias can fend off more powerful militaries. So yes, the 2nd amendment is important to keeping our freedom. People that think nothing can or will ever happen in our country…with the way natural resources are dwindling and the overpopultion in the world…are living a dream!
Janney
January 17th, 2013
12:35 pm
Love this article, Jay. Am sending it to one of my (slightly deluded) right-winger friend.
Oscar
January 17th, 2013
12:35 pm
Ancestors and descendants. Easy to get those words confused. Give the guy a break.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
12:35 pm
Yep, the battle against tyranny is being waged at keyboards in trailer parks, basements and
subdivisions.
I am unimpressed.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
12:36 pm
Go for it lt.
Or are you just running your cowardly mouth?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
12:37 pm
One man’s claptrap is another man’s truth.
The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.
DannyX
January 17th, 2013
12:37 pm
From what I understand Obama is coming to get your guns, after that he is getting rid of college football, then he is scheduled to end NASCAR, then Obama will be coming after your light beer!
TYRANNY!!!!
Soothsayer
January 17th, 2013
12:37 pm
“So when is the big uprising against the tyrannical Obama going to happen?”
Everyone’s waiting for the “super-secret signal!”
RB from Gwinnett
January 17th, 2013
12:37 pm
“Reality
11:52 am
They have a ban of all guns in the Country. Even the police are not allowed guns – they use billie clubs.
Now – what can we possibly learn from this?”
That it’s not true… http://www.scottishhuntingtours.com/
They ain’t hunting with rocks.
Oscar
January 17th, 2013
12:38 pm
Enter your comments here
TBone
January 17th, 2013
12:39 pm
The US armed forces would not follow the Teleprompter in Chief’s orders if worse came to worst.
Madmax
January 17th, 2013
12:39 pm
Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.
or
Guns don’t shoot people. People do.
What our POTUS did was nothing more than political posturing in his directives/orders and amounted to an explotation of the victims. Nothing he did would have prevented what happened, nor will it prevent it from happening in the future.
In regards to the argument about the armed citizenry, Patrick Henry said it best.
Redcoat
January 17th, 2013
12:40 pm
Jay……..What is the second amendment for? Your statements and what is in it do not compare……so what do you think the second amendment is for? Why is it even an amendment? And by your reasoning, the people should just surrender to the government because it’s no use. Jay, under what circumstances would you rebel against your government if it should need be?
Oscar
January 17th, 2013
12:40 pm
Scubasteve – The armed forces would fire back if fired upon – or not fired upon. Kent Stata – Four dead in Ohio. Not that long ago for some of us.
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
12:40 pm
Buy and keep an assault weapon for no other reason other
than to defend against a tyrannical government.
What is wrong with that scenario ?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
12:41 pm
Everyone’s waiting for the “super-secret signal!”
The outline of a hoveround in the sky?
yuzeyurbrane
January 17th, 2013
12:41 pm
Thank you Jay for finally saying what needed to be said. I having been calling these nuts, anarchists and nihilists. But only in the loosest terms, because those concepts actually involve some a philosophy or logic. These extremists we have are actually just narcissistic nuts. They live in a fantasy world of good guys and bad guys in which they are the heroes coming to the rescue with their automatic weapons. This has been enhanced by some movies and TV and certainly on the Internet and rightwing talk radio and TV. They are predicting mass seizure of guns, concentration camps, gulags, etc. by our “socialist” govt. Yet the only way any part of this could happen would be the conclusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy in which these traitors passed from talk to action and the govt. moved to protect itself and the law-abiding majority. This happened once before in this country and it was called the Civil War. Yet, according to the twisted logic of these nuts, Lincoln violated the 2nd Amendment rights of the traitors who rose against this country. Then as now, unfortunately, the greatest number of these traitors reside in the South.
TiredOfIt
January 17th, 2013
12:41 pm
I see Rand Paul is proposing legislation to nullify President Obama’s executive orders. He should try spending more time with his drunken 19 year hoodlum son. Typical family values guy.
Liberal Nightmare
January 17th, 2013
12:42 pm
“And now the slaves ancesters have the (illagal) guns and are killing each other. How do we stop that? We don’t, it’s their culture. It’s up to them and their so called leaders to stop it.”
But, but, but it be da wite man’s fault for placing all those illegal guns in da hood and encouraging bro on bro killins.
The lib-turds should be outraged that a bunch of white children get shot up and it gets presidential attention, yet mass killings of africanos happen every day in inner cities and no one gives a rip. Why not tackle the real problem of gun violence in the black community. Geesh a church funeral was the location of a retribution shooting not so many months ago in Atlanta and we get zero debate on gun violence in the black community. Confiscate all guns in the inner cities of America and you would see an overnight drop of high double digits in violent crime. Truth hurts don’t it. You libs need to take care of your own which you have helped to create.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
12:42 pm
I will stand with our President and country so bring it on cons.
Talk is cheap.
Bring it or zip it.
Soothsayer
January 17th, 2013
12:42 pm
The “super-secret signal” will come in your Polident.
Lt Col Razorback
January 17th, 2013
12:43 pm
And another thing, while your argument that privately armed citizens can’t possibly stand up to an Army without equal weaponry available to them is plausible, don’t forget that a comparatively weak “Army” call ed the Viet Cong, ultimately prevailed over just such an Army as you describe….ours!!
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
12:44 pm
annyX
January 17th, 2013
12:37 pm
From what I understand Obama is coming to get your guns, after that he is getting rid of college football, then he is scheduled to end NASCAR, then Obama will be coming after your light beer!
TYRANNY!!!!
.
.
.
.
When they come for my garlic infused virgin olive oil – I’ll be busting out
the old nunchucks myself.
Partisay
January 17th, 2013
12:44 pm
Enter your comments here, even if they’re stupid.
Don't blame me I didn't vote for the idiot
January 17th, 2013
12:45 pm
One question, How many Guns did Timothy McVeigh use in his massacre ?
Carol
January 17th, 2013
12:45 pm
Jay,
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I’ve been saying many of the same things you pointed out in this blog for the past week. I am so fed up witht he diskngenuous conversations on this matter. No less the out and out lies that the Government and Democrats are trying to take Americans guns from them. You can’t purchase a tank or rocket launcher can you? Then why would the average citizen have a need for guns that would make its target swiss cheese? You only hunt one thing with that kind of weapon–and it doesn’t have four legs.
Enough of the madness, lies and bloodlust.
King Obama
January 17th, 2013
12:46 pm
I just think that hand guns are the real culprit and should be banned….
DannyX
January 17th, 2013
12:46 pm
“Jay, under what circumstances would you rebel against your government if it should need be?”
Now, Redcoat. Obama is coming for your guns. Obama = Hitler. Obama is a tyrant.
What the heck are you guys waiting for? Those beer bellies aren’t going to get any smaller.
Ronald Reagan
January 17th, 2013
12:47 pm
Again again & again the Liberals are so out of touch with reality!
getalife
January 17th, 2013
12:47 pm
You will end up dead or in gitmo.
Soothsayer
January 17th, 2013
12:49 pm
ALL RIGHT, CHAIRBORNE BRIGADE! Bring those seatbacks on those La-Z-Boys to their full upright position. On my command, BLAST THAT OBAMA OFF’N THAT TELEVISION SCREEN! F-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-RE!
BLK09GT
January 17th, 2013
12:50 pm
Partisay @ 12:01 By liberal definition anything with a pistol grip or collapisable stock is an assault weapon. Many shotguns have these features. People are missing the bigger picture. This isn’t just about AR15s.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
12:50 pm
Ronald Reagan
January 17th, 2013
12:47 pm
Again again & again the Liberals are so out of touch with reality!
.
.
.
.
Gee Whiz Mr. President, we have video and audio of you neck deep in that same reality.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
12:50 pm
“I am stuck on Band-Aid brand cuz Band-Aid’s stuck on me!”
– Thomas Jefferson
Nero
January 17th, 2013
12:51 pm
This country was born out of treason and armed revolt. It’s as American as apple pie. “Our” President will understand.
jay h
January 17th, 2013
12:51 pm
Rage, rage, anger, anger:
“But…but..but..there’s a BLACK man in our WHITE house!
And he has a funny NAME!
We gotta have guns for THAT!”
getalife
January 17th, 2013
12:52 pm
Let me know when you cons are going to organize to fight so I can stand on the front line with government to fight with them.
Madmax
January 17th, 2013
12:53 pm
This is all meaningless diversion from the real issue that the President doesn’t want to tackle.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
12:53 pm
Again again & again the Liberals are so out of touch with reality!
Alzheimer’s guy says, “What?”
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 17th, 2013
12:54 pm
Well, from the title I gather Bookman never got the word. We don’t need no liscence to revolt against this Kenyan, Socialist, Muslim guvmint, so the 2nd Amenment don’t have nothing to do with that. We’ll do it just as soon as we get fed up with this guvmint
not doing things we likeacting all unconstitutional.Have a good p.m. everybody.
Redcoat
January 17th, 2013
12:55 pm
Danny X………as usual no answers to questions, just stupid sarcasm from you…….get serious and answer it if you can honestly? where is your line drawn? I would love to know. Thought I’d try anyway.
Nero
January 17th, 2013
12:56 pm
Getalife’s gotta an itchy trigger finger for some cons.
TBS
January 17th, 2013
12:56 pm
“don’t forget that a comparatively weak “Army” call ed the Viet Cong, ultimately prevailed over just such an Army as you describe….ours!!
”
Were they really that weak? Many had fought against the Chinese and French, plus they were getting supplies from North Vietnam who was in turn getting them from China and Russia.
False equivalency to say the least.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
12:56 pm
LTC Razorback — “don’t forget that a comparatively weak “Army” call ed the Viet Cong”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_PAVN_logistics_and_equipment#Support_by_the_Soviet_bloc_and_China
Don't blame me I didn't vote for the idiot
January 17th, 2013
12:57 pm
There is no cure for stupid
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
12:57 pm
Obama should come after the con’s light beer and replace it with something worth drinking. He would be doing them a favor.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
12:57 pm
red,
Why in the world would any patriotic American talk to a traitor?
Real Scootter
January 17th, 2013
12:58 pm
Those beer bellies aren’t going to get any smaller.
They have you fooled DannyX.Those are fuel tanks for flame throwers!
DownInAlbany
January 17th, 2013
12:58 pm
While presenting a litany of gun control measures for Congress to consider, President Obama suggested that “40% of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.”
In other words, 40% of gun sales are private.
While he was still speaking, one of my friends texted me and asked: “How does Obama know how many guns are sold privately? The fact that it’s ‘private’ means it’s not public.”
So I started looking through databases for references to this figure, and I soon found myself reading a 2011 study by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg titled, “Point, Click, Fire: An Investigation Into Illegal Online Gun Sales.”
According to the study, “40% of guns are sold through private sellers.” Moreover, the study claims that “these sales—which take place in many venues, including gun shows and, increasingly, on the internet… fuel the black market for illegal guns.”
Many parts of this assertion are factually flawed or, at the least, very misleading.
First off, the figure of 40% doesn’t represent new guns but guns already in circulation, which are being resold on a secondary basis. The intimation that 40% of new guns are being sold illegally is simply myth-making at best, lying at worst.
What’s really happening is that people who think like Bloomberg and Obama are guessing that a certain percentage of firearms in the hands of Americans have no paperwork on them because their original sale predates background checks. Thus, their goal is to seal off avenues for private sales in order to force Americans to enter those guns into the system.
As for selling guns on the Internet to avoid background checks, that’s another stretch. If a citizen buys a gun from a store via the internet, that gun has to be shipped from a dealer with an Federal Firearms License (FFL) to another dealer with a FFL.
In other words, if a resident of Denver bought a gun from a store in Tampa, the FFL in Tampa would send the gun to an FFL in Denver. Once it arrived, the buyer would pay a fee for shipping, taxes on the gun, as well as any mark-up for services. He would also have to submit to a back-ground check just as if he had bought the gun off a shelf in Denver.
The idea that 40% of gun sales are private is meant to confuse Americans and make them think there is a breakdown in the system somewhere. But there’s not.
Interesting perspective.
indigo
January 17th, 2013
12:58 pm
So when is the big uprising against the tyrannical Obama going to happen?
After all the cons cut a plug of their favorite chewin terbaccae.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
12:58 pm
R. Reagan — “Again again & again the Liberals are so out of touch with reality!”
Dead guy with Alzheimer’s says what?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
12:59 pm
There is no cure for stupid
Sarah Palin says, “What?”
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
12:59 pm
The US armed forces would not follow the Teleprompter in Chief’s orders if worse came to worst.
Some nitwit has been watching a LOT of TV.
America’s veterans and active duty personnel know exactly what that oath says. (…all enemies, foreign and domestic…)
So to brother Corbin’s (GO NAVY!) point earlier, hell yeah, count me in too.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
12:59 pm
Redcoat
A stupid post is best responded to with humor…..
Bless your heart.
Krystal'sBalls
January 17th, 2013
12:59 pm
I wonder how long before the “United” *cough* States finds itself embroiled in some sort of civil war? The general climate indicates it is ripe for such a thing, and with crackpots like some on this blog with their extreme vitriol and lack of consideration for their fellow citizen, such a thing would be REAL nasty for all involved. I happen to think that is a grave miscalculation on behalf of the crackpots.
Thulsa Doom
January 17th, 2013
1:00 pm
Kinda strange that the same administration that was knowingly selling assault rifles to deadly Mexican drug cartels is now is all of a sudden against the same or similar rifles for the law abiding citizenry. As the liberal elites preach “Do as I say- not as I do.”
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:02 pm
cons are now aq and will be treated like aq.
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
1:02 pm
The US Government did not write the Constitution so
by what authority does it exist and how does it grant
any rights?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:02 pm
indigo — “terbaccae.”
That appears to be the Latin plural form of “terbacky.”
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
1:03 pm
The S&P 500 hit a five year intraday high. Dang, cons! Y’all better hurry up and storm the White House before the Obama administration makes you all wealthy because that would really ruin your tyrannical government meme.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:05 pm
“Getalife’s gotta an itchy trigger finger for some cons”
Please, old fat lazy scared cons are just running their mouths.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:05 pm
B. Frog — “The US Government did not write the Constitution so by what authority does it exist and how does it grant any rights?”
Covered the first day in any Con Law class.
It exists due to the “consent of the governed.”
And the rights, powers and authorities granted to the people, the states and the Federal government are therein outlined at the behest of We The People.
I know it is popular with some folks to claim that our rights were granted by a deity, but the Constitution itself is quite clear on the point that We The People assert our OWN rights, and that we PERMIT the various State and Federal governments to use the powers delegated to them in OUR name.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
1:05 pm
Thulsa
Is that why Bush didn’t fight the assault weapons bans expiration ….so he could
set the stage for Fast and Furious by creating Operation Wide Receiver?
Will wonders never cease.
AS the conservatives preach…WMDs, mental recession, Romney in a landslide.
Keith
January 17th, 2013
1:06 pm
How does this explain the situation in Afghanistan. The two toughest, most technologically advanced military powers on the planet have not been successful in defeating the Taliban. You can trust the govt if you want to, I’ll hang on to my arsenal.
TBS
January 17th, 2013
1:06 pm
getalife
Seems we have a lot of “black helicopter” conspiracy folks mixed in with some “Doomsday preppers” on this blog……….
I’m chuckling at some of the comments, however I am not sure if it is funny or sad. Maybe it is both
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:06 pm
Tax,
I had a strong feeling that something big is about to give us something new to invest in.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
1:07 pm
The S&P 500 hit a five year intraday high.
“You can have my 401k, when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Karl Rove
January 17th, 2013
1:08 pm
Hey Obama haters and fellow cons- here is some tyranny for you-time to rise up and get the Georgia militia to work off their butts and quit this liberal commie gun control crap:
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"Federal firearm authorities in July 2011 issued so-called “demand letters” to every gun dealer in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, requiring thousands of retail sellers to report sales of more than one semi-automatic rifle to the same person at one time or during a period of five consecutive business days.
The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a component of the U.S. Justice Department, said the request for information arose in the effort to investigate and combat firearm trafficking along the southwest border with Mexico. A judge last year upheld the legality of the letters, which the ATF said would allow agents to trace firearms discovered at crime scenes more quickly.
The challengers in the case, which is set for a hearing today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, contend the reporting requirement would amount to the creation of a national firearms registry, which Congress has expressly prohibited.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, represented by Arnold & Porter, filed a brief in support of the government in the appeals court. The plaintiffs in two consolidated suits are the nonprofit trade association National Shooting Sports Foundation and two gun retailers in Arizona. “”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/PubArticleDRO.jsp?id=1202583764540&ATF_regs_in_the_cross_hairs_&slreturn=20130017125828
Nothing like a gun loving anti-tyranny organization like the National Shooting Sports Foundation having their big gun fest right now in Las Vegas for members only. Their home base is in a town that loves to arm militia members for the coming revolution -Newtown Connecticut. Never know when one of those first graders is a secret gun hater ready to steal your weapons.RISE UP!
Also remember if someone passes gas in a crowded room- it is probably the guy with an anti NRA button.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:09 pm
Both,
It is hilarious
Revolution threads are the best threads.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
1:09 pm
Krystal’sBalls, all of these right wing blowhards put together don’t have the guts to try a damn thing.
Sure they talk real loud from the back of the crowd, but who are these drama queens trying to kid?
These are NOT men of action.
Except in a Al Qaeda kind of way.
i.e. using truck bombs to indiscriminately kill women and children, or to stroll into a liberal church in Knoxville and do the same.
Crushing their treason would taket about as long as the mission to kill OBL…
John Daly
January 17th, 2013
1:10 pm
Reality at 11:52 You need to check your facts. England just gave their police permission to carry guns again because they were get shot at so often. Also you might check this out – The Cumbria shootings in 2010 led to 13 fatalities and 11 injured when Derrick Bird shot and killed three people connected to himself, and 12 others in an apparently random shooting spree before turning the gun on himself. Bird held legal permits for three shotguns and a rifle
F. Sinkwich
January 17th, 2013
1:10 pm
Wassup with this O’bozo EO instructing the CDC to get involved with this gun violence stuff. The CDC should stay focused on the sniffles and four hour erections and such.
Besides:
“The statute that governs the agency’s funding stipulates that none of its federal funding can be used “to advocate or promote gun control.”"
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
1:11 pm
@keith
January 17th, 2013
11:05 am
Liberals need to educate themselves.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
F Y I Genuis
Academics, intellectuals, and the highly educated overall constitute an important part of the DEMOCRATIC voter base.
Academia in particular tends to be progressive. In a survey, nearly 72% of full-time faculty members identified as liberal, while 15% identified as conservative.
DUH
Uh Huh
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:11 pm
K. Rove — “Also remember if someone passes gas in a crowded room- it is probably the guy with an anti NRA button.”
Or else it’s a Tea Party member, riding the Metro into the District and showing all the gubmint workers what he thinks of them.
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
1:13 pm
JoeHusseinMama
Exactly, and included is an avenue to change it by our elected
representatives therefore since the Supreme Court defines it to say
that guns can be regulated the conservatives should amend it to
say they cannot be regulated if they are concerned but no such
movement is afoot.
Steve
January 17th, 2013
1:14 pm
I just lost 5 min of my life reading through this tripe.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:14 pm
scout was talking about “clearing a room” last night.
I wrote just fart scout
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:14 pm
F. Sinkiewicz — ““The statute that governs the agency’s funding stipulates that none of its federal funding can be used “to advocate or promote gun control.””
Link, please.
Aquagirl
January 17th, 2013
1:15 pm
The two toughest, most technologically advanced military powers on the planet have not been successful in defeating the Taliban.
Why are so many gun nuts citing the Taliban as a role model? “Yes, we too could fend off oppressive governments while fighting amongst ourselves and living a sub-human illiterate existence! Hell yeah!”
Nero
January 17th, 2013
1:15 pm
getalife,
Just like old fat greedy libs talking about treating other Americans like Al Qaeda? You gonna send a drone to take them out now?? HAHA!!! Don’t forget your shine box. I’m sure ‘our” President has some of Michelle’s shoes you can polish.
Lynnie Gal
January 17th, 2013
1:15 pm
Oh, come on Cons! You can think of more recent references to tyranny than King George, Hitler, Stalin, Brownshirts, etc. Yawn! There’s been more recent dictatorships to compare Obama and the Democrats! Oh, and Jay. In your list of weaponry that isn’t available to militias, you left out the mother of all weapons–Nuclear weapons. Con’s will be pushing for their own nuclear weapons next.
td
January 17th, 2013
1:15 pm
Why is it that almost every progressive politician, police chief, mayor or reporter on MSNBC today talking about Obama’s gun control plans keep saying “it is a good FIRST step”?
Now tell us conservatives again why we should not worry about the slippery slop theory?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:16 pm
getalife — “scout was talking about “clearing a room” last night.”
Is he experimenting with nonlethal weaponry?
Three bacon cheese Krystals and three chili cheese pups will do it for me.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
1:17 pm
The CDC should stay focused on the sniffles…
Reminds me of the time he wrote that he was offended by NASA studying climate change.
Stay ignorant, my friend…
and yes, td, if I were you I’d be VERY worried about the slippery slop theory!
Nero
January 17th, 2013
1:17 pm
The Founding Fathers were all traitors too.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 17th, 2013
1:17 pm
williebkind: “The last two massive murders were done by liberals. I guess you guys keep waiting for someone who calls themselves conservative to commit such an act”
Huh?
So we’re categorizing people who commit rampage murders based on some vague self-definition of political affiliation?
Maybe this goes past our synaptic capacities here but rampage murderers are essentially a-political, by definition. That said, however, we can observe in both the recent high-profile cases, Loughner and Lanza, individuals who exhibited strongly paranoid behavior patterns. In Loughner’s case a paranoid-delusional fascination with currency and in Lanza’s case membership in a household that was preparing for a future era of armed conflict following the breakdown of any central government. In both cases these behaviors are, if anything, more typical of conservative and libertarian-leaning positions.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:17 pm
bero,
Old fat lazy cons revolt is all hot air.
It would be put down in seconds.
Lets get real.
AlterEgo
January 17th, 2013
1:17 pm
@jamvet
“America’s veterans and active duty personnel know exactly what that oath says. (…all enemies, foreign and domestic…)
So to brother Corbin’s (GO NAVY!) point earlier, hell yeah, count me in too.”
And you are prepared to do what, exactly?
TDOG
January 17th, 2013
1:18 pm
Hey, If Saddam let his peolple have semi autos, let us have them. Please, everyone join the NRA.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:18 pm
td — “Now tell us conservatives again why we should not worry about the slippery slop theory?”
If you think that a meaningful, comprehensive national gun control policy can be implemented in a *single* step, I would be very interested in hearing the details of that. And I bet a lot of other posters here would be just as interested as I am.
Jeffrey
January 17th, 2013
1:18 pm
“And the presidency is not a license to sign away constitutional rights, either, Bookman. But whatever. Tell that to the folks in Germany when Hitler came to power. Their guns were taken and they had no way to fight back. Six million Jews murdered because they had no way to defend themselves. Gun confiscation under Stalin……millions died with no way to fight back. Oh, but that won’t happen in America, right Bookman? Right?”
Well Jed there is only one little problem with your analogy…Its a lie! The Wehrmacht Republic had extremely strict gun control laws. Hitler relaxed them. He didn’t take away anyone’s guns. And do your really think a handful of Jews with rifles and shotguns could have gone up against a professional army? Its as likely as you with your beloved assault rifle banging away at a Abrams tank. If the government wants to crush you like you black helicopter believing folks hold to be the true, YOUR *SS IS CRUSHED! The vast majority of you NRA types only use your guns as a means to reinforce your cowardice, in a real fire fight you’d run away screaming like a little girl. And before you start jumping up and down and screaming LIBERAL at the top of your lungs, I am a former NRA member, won repeated 4-H rifle championships, own over a dozen firearms and put a third of the food on my table from hunting and fishing. Most amazing thing is that 20 years ago I OWNED an assault rifle, it was the most useless firearm I ever owned because it was only meant to do on thing, KILL PEOPLE.
southpaw
January 17th, 2013
1:18 pm
Reality @11:52
Here’s something we can learn.
http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/2008/2008-06_evaluating-britains-handgun-ban.html
Or maybe we can pass laws like those found in Norway. What was that about the lack of “mass murder?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/24/norway-strict-gun-laws-circumvented
Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!
January 17th, 2013
1:18 pm
Lt Col Razorback
January 17th, 2013
12:43 pm
Now I know you are full of it. You impugn the military. If you WERE military, you would know why we lost in ‘Nam. Go play with your toy soldiers, or your video game. What a loser you are.
Goldie
January 17th, 2013
1:19 pm
Assault weapons must make you men feel real man-ly… all that ability to mow down 20 to 30 people in a shopping mall within a minute’s time. Whew — that’ll really show everyone who’s manly, yes???
Soothsayer
January 17th, 2013
1:19 pm
“slippery slop theory”
No, I’m NOT going to go there. I’ll let you use your imagination.
Liberal Nightmare
January 17th, 2013
1:19 pm
The lib-turds should be outraged that a bunch of white children get shot up and it gets presidential attention, yet mass killings of africanos happen every day in inner cities and no one gives a rip. Why not tackle the real problem of gun violence in the black community. Geesh a church funeral was the location of a retribution shooting not so many months ago in Atlanta and we get zero debate on gun violence in the black community. Confiscate all guns in the inner cities of America and you would see an overnight drop of high double digits in violent crime. Truth hurts don’t it. You libs need to take care of your own which you have helped to create.
Erwin's cat
January 17th, 2013
1:19 pm
http://money.msn.com/investing/states-with-the-slowest-recoveries
we’re 26th
Thulsa Doom
January 17th, 2013
1:19 pm
Granny Godzilla,
Aaaahhh. Its W’s fault- that’s all you needed to say. So its W’s fault that the Obama administration was gun running assault weapons to deadly Mexican drug cartel.
BTW its sad that that some nut went and killed 23 innocent schoolchildren. And its also sad that thousands Mexicans have died in the ongoing drug cartel wars- some, including children, dying with guns provided to the thugs via the Obama administration. Shame on this administration.
Ben
January 17th, 2013
1:20 pm
Personally, I think the police should be held to the same kind of weaponry as the populace. If we can’t have grenades or tanks or stinger missiles or automatic weapons, neither should the police.
Steve
January 17th, 2013
1:20 pm
NRA popularity declining – no surprise.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-nras-popularity-declining/
PPP finds that 45 percent of voters now have an unfavorable view of the NRA, with 42 percent viewing it favorably. That represents a 10 percent swing from PPP’s previous national poll — conducted two days before LaPierre’s press conference — in which 48 percent viewed the NRA favorably, and 41 percent unfavorably.
guy
January 17th, 2013
1:21 pm
JamVet,
So you think a lot of the slaughter of 6 million Jews was something they could have avoided themselves. Maybe so but the problem is most victims don’t know ahead of time what murderers have planned. How can anyone make excuses for those who had the weapons with an evil heart?
hateful,hateful,hateful,hateful,hateful,hateful,hateful.
TaxPayer
January 17th, 2013
1:21 pm
The slippery slop theory is that if you spill it and step in it, you will slip and fall down and go BOOM!
Ben
January 17th, 2013
1:23 pm
If the government does decide to confiscate guns already owned by citizens, the government will be the ones creating the bloodshed that will result. And the government will be the ones committing treason against the people.
Not only that, but in order to confiscate all guns of a certain type, the government would have to create what amounts to a secret police, and like the TSA, it won’t go away, it will expand in scope and power and we won’t ever get rid of it, but it will get rid of our freedom.
Tom Middleton
January 17th, 2013
1:23 pm
And in a democracy, when we can have a complete change of our leadership by simply voting instead of pulling triggers… Oh but wait; isn’t one of our two political parties – the one always screaming about their need to be massively armed – always trying to corrupt our elections so it can keep all our votes from counting?
I think I’ve got it, Jay, and it’s not the government at all. It’s that one of our two political parties – the Republican – simply doesn’t believe in democracy!
Majtom85
January 17th, 2013
1:23 pm
Wisdom from Scalia! Would’a thunk? A well crafted, reasonable article. The NRA is in favor of keeping guns from “”lunatics” [so called]. From what I’ve seen in the press, that would include their CEO, President, head of their media efforts and a good portion of their membership.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
1:23 pm
td
January 17th, 2013
1:15 pm
Why is it that almost every progressive politician, police chief, mayor or reporter on MSNBC today talking about Obama’s gun control plans keep saying “it is a good FIRST step”?
Now tell us conservatives again why we should not worry about the slippery slop theory?
.
.
.
.
Go ahead worry.
oh and
wear spikes.
St Simons - he-ne-ha Bootakook 2014
January 17th, 2013
1:24 pm
hey, looks like your article got linked by “Gun Nut Daily” or something..
all this impotent rage….
DannyX
January 17th, 2013
1:24 pm
“I’ll hang on to my arsenal.”
I think that pretty much explains what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of our so-called warriors stayed home. They became fearless blog warriors, armed with their keyboards, the guns stayed on the rack.
“Don’t worry about the Americans,” the terrorists in Afghanistan say. “Their angry blog talk can’t touch us. The American warriors love their guns but don’t want to use them.”
Our warriors are blogging about them here so they don’t have to fight them over there.
Why haven’t we produced better results in Afghanistan? Guns will break their bones, but blogs will never hurt them.
F. Sinkwich
January 17th, 2013
1:24 pm
Here ya go, Joey. Just hope it ain’t a page buster.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/16/obama_gun_control_executive_orders_call_for_cdc_gun_violence_research_17.html
td
January 17th, 2013
1:25 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:18 pm
td — “Now tell us conservatives again why we should not worry about the slippery slop theory?”
If you think that a meaningful, comprehensive national gun control policy can be implemented in a *single* step,
Yes, I and other Conservatives would be very interested in how you and other progressives would define “meaningful, comprehensive national gun control policy” would look like in your views? Please start, we are waiting patiently.
Loves Me Some Obama Kool-Aid
January 17th, 2013
1:25 pm
How is it that you need a background check to own a gun but not to run a country?
RB from Gwinnett
January 17th, 2013
1:25 pm
Krystal, “Like I said, until the U. S. honestly addresses the real problems behind this, it will forever be in turmoil.”
You are correct, Krystal. Until people just like YOU stop making everything a racist issue even when there is nothing racist about anything I said, there will never be any improvement. And no, I didn’t know you were black and no, I don’t care. You are, however, a racist.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:26 pm
td,
Just ask the police.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
1:26 pm
AlterMeat, you may not understand the reference, but that information is strictly on a need to know basis.
And as you are new here (LOL) you are not on that list.
Just don’t join a domestic terrorism ring and you’ll never have to find out…
Ben
January 17th, 2013
1:27 pm
Welcome to the Occupation: I like how you mock someone for making partisan connections of mass shooters, then go right ahead and try without success or accuracy to tie them to conservatives. Go mock yourself.
The sad part is that you and I both know that if you could definitively tie a mass shooter to the GOP (which you can’t because it’s not true), then you and ever liberal would be shouting it from the rooftops. So take your disingenuous BS and go back to your group-think circle.
Steve
January 17th, 2013
1:28 pm
Right, and Obama is a Muslim that was born in Kenya, climate change isn’t real, gays are going to destroy the military, women shouldn’t vote…
Uh Huh....Nonsensical Idea
January 17th, 2013
1:28 pm
@td
January 17th, 2013
1:15 pm
Now tell us conservatives again why we should not worry about the slippery slop theory?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Otay, I will.
The phrase ‘SLIPPERY SLOPE’ is more than seven times as common as it was twenty years ago.
It’s a CONVENIENT way of WARNING of the DIRE effects of some course of action without actually having to CRITICIZE the action itself, which is what makes it a favorite PLOY of HYPOCRITES:
‘Not that there’s anything wrong with A, mind you, but A will lead to B and then C, and before you know it we’ll be up to our armpits in Z.’”
SLIPPPPPERY THINKING.
Stu Bioge
January 17th, 2013
1:28 pm
Bookman using Scalia as support? What planet did I wake up on today?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 17th, 2013
1:29 pm
Is there any accounting for the near total intellectual bankruptcy and squalor of the mind of the so-called “conservative” right wing of today?
There’s simply no reasoning with rubes, since their very existence is based on an entombing of the mind, an attempt to ward off all reason and reflection.
F. Sinkwich
January 17th, 2013
1:30 pm
“Reminds me of the time he wrote that he was offended by NASA studying climate change.”
Not intended to be a factual statement. *
* KammieSpam. All rights reserved.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:30 pm
Lets recap.
Guns were never on our President’s agenda until 20 kids were slaughtered at school and the majority demanded action.
Our President acted quickly to the majority like government should so the cons want to talk about being traitors.
It is just talk because we know cons are cowards.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
1:30 pm
How is it that you need a background check to own a gun but not to run a country?
Birthers.
Loves Me Some Obama Kool-Aid
January 17th, 2013
1:31 pm
Guns don’t kill people in mass quantities, the MENTALLY ILL…and Muslims in Texas do.
Ben
January 17th, 2013
1:31 pm
Welcome to the Occupation: Insults. That’s what folks like you do when you know you can’t actually win an argument with logic.
Funny how for all the talk about the NRA being a hate group, most of the hate seems to be from the left and directed AT the NRA.
guy
January 17th, 2013
1:31 pm
The sad part is none of us can control what’s in other folks minds and hearts. Gun control may help some but the ones who have control over their guns have to change. War on the inside leads to war on the outside!
Loves Me Some Obama Kool-Aid
January 17th, 2013
1:32 pm
Amen Ben
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
1:33 pm
Thulsa Doom
January 17th, 2013
1:19 pm
Granny Godzilla,
Aaaahhh. Its W’s fault- that’s all you needed to say. So its W’s fault that the Obama administration was gun running assault weapons to deadly Mexican drug cartel.
didn’t say that, I pointed out the similarity of the two programs, you can understand that can’t you?
BTW its sad that that some nut went and killed 23 innocent schoolchildren. And its also sad that thousands Mexicans have died in the ongoing drug cartel wars- some, including children, dying with guns provided to the thugs via the Obama administration. Shame on this administration.
Data?
DannyX
January 17th, 2013
1:33 pm
Anyone know why Ronald Reagan suddenly became an advocate for gun control?
td, you want to give that one a try?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
1:34 pm
Not intended to be a factual statement. *
*
KammieOffice of Republican Senator Jon KylSpam. All rights reserved.getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:35 pm
Too bad you cons did not stand up when w stole freedom or you would have a slither of credibility
You were scared to death of aq and now you are acting like aq..
Impotent Rage
January 17th, 2013
1:35 pm
well, this issue allows me to point/mumble/scream Obama = Hitler!
‘kenyan socialist teleprompter-reading muslin’ didn’t work in November,
so I like this one.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:36 pm
td — “Yes, I and other Conservatives would be very interested in how you and other progressives would define “meaningful, comprehensive national gun control policy” would look like in your views? Please start, we are waiting patiently.”
You have already been asked a question in this regard and have the floor. Here; I’ll post it again for you; If you think that a meaningful, comprehensive national gun control policy can be implemented in a *single* step, I would be very interested in hearing the details of that.
Please, lay out your detailed plan. I am most eager to know the details of it, as it might actually be something I could support.
If, OTOH, you have no such plan and are merely complaining in order to complain, please let me know.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
1:36 pm
and other Conservatives would be very interested in how you and other progressives…
An upper case C and lower case p.
Reminds me of the same technique used in the racist tracts of the 1960s.
Such as:
“…. the case for blacks and Whites being desegregated is a liberal plot…
Very juvenile.
Peace
January 17th, 2013
1:36 pm
Jay, I am certain that your First Amendment rights have done more harm to America than have my Second Amendment rights.
Loves Me Some Obama Kool-Aid
January 17th, 2013
1:37 pm
I wasn’t happy when Bush stole freedom and that’s why I hate Obama stealing my freedoms. Broad generalizations of all Conservatives can be tricky.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 17th, 2013
1:37 pm
Ben: “I like how you mock someone for making partisan connections of mass shooters, then go right ahead and try without success or accuracy to tie them to conservatives. Go mock yourself.”
Yeah, true, I’m mocking the person for being a good little Bircher-type rube who in knee-jerk fashion tries to assert that these rampage murderers were “liberal”, a claim so absurd that it’s hard to know whether to burst out laughing at it or actually take it as a serious claim. It’s right up there with the idea that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.
But the claim becomes a little more interesting when you observe that, as I said, to the extent that any political/ideological motives at all can be discerned in the mad ramblings or the obscure backgrounds of these sick individuals, they bear a remarkable resemblance to the general paranoia towards government and central authority that is characteristic of the Bircher right wing, and certainly not “liberals”. Make of it what you will.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:37 pm
Thank you for the reply, Fishy. I was hoping for a link to the provision itself, but that’ll do.
Majtom85
January 17th, 2013
1:38 pm
Rachel Maddow had a good name for the LaPierres and Alex Jones of the world. trolls who want to take up space in our heads. Trolls whose only reasons for existing is to create visceral fear. Fear that they are in fact so crazy, and there are so many of of the, that every peace loving Joe who never would want a gun would buy one, just because these people are _so_ crazy. Good, cheap, advertising for the gun industry. The gun folks can count their profits in the Caymans. Too bad about the kids. Too bad about the little people. The gun manufacturers are betting that when you’re dead, you are just dead, so live it up now. And for those Christians out there–good Christians-which side of the line do you want to be on when the Saints Come Marching In? The NRA leadership line, the gun manufacturers line, or the other? Salvation might depend on this. A human zygote is a precious thing. Would you fight as hard to save a life in being, an actual living child, as you would for that zygote? Fight for both!
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:38 pm
“I wasn’t happy when Bush stole freedom and that’s why I hate Obama stealing my freedoms”
BS, it was the left that stood up and you cons cheered w on liar.
John Daly
January 17th, 2013
1:39 pm
Joe Hussein Mama @ 11:54 Actually, it is. read it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Loves Me Some Obama Kool-Aid
January 17th, 2013
1:39 pm
Guns don’t kill people….Planned Parenthood Does!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
1:39 pm
Kam, seems we have birthers, tenthers, hookers, trumpers, and now Dawners.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
1:41 pm
BS, it was the left that stood up and you cons cheered w on liar.
Hey! maybe he just “found his voice” on January 21, 2009!
That’s not impossible!
Schnort.
The Truth
January 17th, 2013
1:41 pm
I will be hilarious to see what these psycho, prepper gun nuts will do when the “gubamint” comes after them (I’m being facetious) with Predator Drones and laser-guided missiles. I hope they have plenty of Beanie Weenies stashed away… I think they watched ‘Red Dawn’ one too many times.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 17th, 2013
1:41 pm
Ben: “Funny how for all the talk about the NRA being a hate group, most of the hate seems to be from the left and directed AT the NRA.”
Moderation in one’s hatred towards those deserving of it is no virtue .. and all that.
I don’t suppose I’ll win you over if I quote a particular individual:
“Hatred as an element of the struggle… a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy”.
Frederick Douglass
January 17th, 2013
1:42 pm
Obama’s coming for your saw mill gravy, black coffee, and cat head bisquits…..the meat and threes are next.
clem
January 17th, 2013
1:42 pm
ga, once a penal colony….
Loves Me Some Obama Kool-Aid
January 17th, 2013
1:42 pm
Well get, this Conservative didn’t. I don’t see where that Tolerance thing is working for you there Liberal boy.
Itchy Finger
January 17th, 2013
1:43 pm
I will admit… Obama has created hundreds if not thousands of jobs for gun manufacturer’s and bullet makers… Does he even realize that these really ain’t jobs he wants to create???
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
1:43 pm
Keep
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:44 pm
Obama lover,
Just call em like I see em.
Regnad Kcin
January 17th, 2013
1:44 pm
“The US armed forces would not follow the Teleprompter in Chief’s orders if worse came to worst.”
Wow, some folks have gone off the deep end, here. Somebody bring the nets!
DannyX
January 17th, 2013
1:44 pm
Gun control, IOKIYARPTWS
(It’s OK If You’re a Republican President That Was Shot)
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:45 pm
J. Daly — “Joe Hussein Mama @ 11:54 Actually, it is.”
Actually, it’s not, and I already referred *you* there. Read the dissenting opinion.
Once again, if anyone here would like to explain to me how the “militia” of Article 1, Section 8 is somehow different and distinct from the “militia” of the Second Amendment — and can point to language in the Constitution that supports them — I would be very interested in reading what they have to say.
Perhaps one day Justice Scalia will favor us with his reply to that question. However, I don’t hold out much hope for that, since there’s no such language *in* the Constitution.
Loves Me Some Obama Kool-Aid
January 17th, 2013
1:46 pm
Get, gotta respect that
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
1:46 pm
I skimmed though the comments I missed. Seems none of our conned have yet to articulate a standard or test to tell us that as JohnnyReb (and others) have determined that tyranny is occurring now, what 2d amendment remedies he and others may have under the constitution. They bravely waive the constitution and tell us all how they are such scholars regarding it, but they cannot tell us what remedies exist if JR believes tyranny exists. (Well in all fairness to RWE, he did yell Ft. Sumter and waive a confederate battle flag, but I did not see any standard/test stated.)
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
1:46 pm
Well get, this Conservative didn’t.
Riiiiiiight!
Go ahead and tell me what it was that you said about the recidivist criminals in the Bush administration. And for gawdssakes don’t punk out. At least TRY to make your lies convincing.
(This should be hysterical…)
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:46 pm
The military would never be called because police are militarized and the National Guard are known for shooting Americans.
Bring it don’t sing it.
Wilbur
January 17th, 2013
1:47 pm
Just take the second amendment out of Bookmans silly argument and replace it with the first amendment…perhaps Jay would be a little less willing to make a Faustian trade of liberty for faux security.
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
1:48 pm
Itchy, if you fraidycats, birthers and candyasses are dumb enough to spend all of your money on that stuff, it appears you are the ones being being played.
Again.
JB
January 17th, 2013
1:50 pm
“Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.”
Guns don’t kill. People do.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 17th, 2013
1:51 pm
JHM, would be an interesting defense to a mass murder to claim a constitutional right to kill under the 2d amendment to “stop tyranny” [ignoring the horror of a mass murder for a moment]. Heller certainly does not provide an answer, even if, say, an entire Texas town decided to follow their sheriff and kill federal officers enforcing federal law.
independent thinker
January 17th, 2013
1:51 pm
Liberal Nighmare:
“”"”"”"”"The lib-turds should be outraged that a bunch of white children get shot up and it gets presidential attention, yet mass killings of africanos happen every day in inner cities and no one gives a rip. Why not tackle the real problem of gun violence in the black community. Geesh a church funeral was the location of a retribution shooting not so many months ago in Atlanta and we get zero debate on gun violence in the black community. Confiscate all guns in the inner cities of America and you would see an overnight drop of high double digits in violent crime. Truth hurts don’t it. You libs need to take care of your own which you have helped to create.”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”
Ah so the tyranny folks want to confiscate all guns from black folks but you better not touch any white folks guns??? That’s kinda neat – an all white militia in the deep South.Where have I seen that before?
And I guess those Georgia gun sellers who sell carloads of guns to straw buyers or at gun shows that later appear on inner city streets have no responsibility?
6,600 guns seized in crime in 2007 came from Georgia- I guess all stolen from White Militia members by Black folks???????
td
January 17th, 2013
1:51 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:36 pm
“You have already been asked a question in this regard and have the floor. Here; I’ll post it again for you; If you think that a meaningful, comprehensive national gun control policy can be implemented in a *single* step, I would be very interested in hearing the details of that.
Again it depends on what you mean by “meaningful” and “comprehensive”?
I personally feel that the current plans presented by the President would NOT have done anything to have stopped the last three school shootings. I do not think anything the president has currently proposed will do anything to stop the crazies from getting guns or will it address the major problems with homicides in all the progressive parts of the country. Therefore, this is really meaningless measures.
OK, I have answered your question so can you lay out your plan?
southpaw
January 17th, 2013
1:52 pm
JHM @1:05
Should I turn on my irony meter when I read anything besides the “Con Law” remark? “Consent of the governed” looks like you meant it, but that’s in the same document as “endowed by their Creator,” and you’ve pointed out that the Declaration of Independence isn’t the Constitution.
BTW, as much as you’ve studied Constitutional law, how have you missed the Supreme Court’s use of the Federalist Papers in interpreting the Constitution? (For example, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1210&context=wmborj) The Constitution DOES mean what two or three Founding Fathers–James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and possibly John Jay–say it means.
Maybe you want to argue “But the Bill of Rights was written after the Federalist Papers! They didn’t talk about the amendments!” Maybe they didn’t. Did they talk about the militia at all (e.g. #29)? If you want to say they didn’t talk about the amendments, then maybe the militia they describe in Article 1 and Federalist #29 isn’t the militia described in the second amendment. You were looking for such a distinction earlier.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:55 pm
Wilbur — “Just take the second amendment out of Bookmans silly argument and replace it with the first amendment…perhaps Jay would be a little less willing to make a Faustian trade of liberty for faux security.”
Way ahead of you.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timeplacemanner.htm
DannyX
January 17th, 2013
1:56 pm
“Guns don’t kill. People do.”
Really? I didn’t work for me. I shaped my fingers like a gun, pointed at my little brother, pulled my imaginary trigger, said BANG, and it didn’t kill him. He did fall down, closed his eyes but he was only playing dead.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
1:56 pm
KUTGF — “JHM, would be an interesting defense to a mass murder to claim a constitutional right to kill under the 2d amendment to “stop tyranny” [ignoring the horror of a mass murder for a moment]. Heller certainly does not provide an answer, even if, say, an entire Texas town decided to follow their sheriff and kill federal officers enforcing federal law.”
Geez, I’d hate to be on THAT jury.
Reality
January 17th, 2013
1:56 pm
It really does entertain me when people use the word “liberal” incorrectly. It just shows how ignorant they are….
First, “liberal” is not a dirty work. It isn’t a bad word. It isn’t profanity by any stretch of the imagination.
Second, the word “liberal” means (according to Websters International Dictionary): One who is generous, one who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters, one free from prejudice or narrow thinking.
The opposite word (according to the same source) is stingy, mean, bigoted, or conservative.
Based on these definitions, I would much prefer to be called a liberal than a conservative!!!
Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom
January 17th, 2013
1:57 pm
If you want to say they didn’t talk about the amendments, then maybe the militia they describe in Article 1 and Federalist #29 isn’t the militia described in the second amendment.
Key word here is MAYBE. Maybe we’ll be invaded by UN troops, or maybe we’ll see cons actually get some common sense…..
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
2:00 pm
td — “Again it depends on what you mean by “meaningful” and “comprehensive”?
If you don’t know, then why are you complaining in the first place?
If you’re complaining that more than one step might be necessary, then you clearly believe that it can be done in a single step.
If, OTOH, you simply don’t KNOW how many steps it will take (perhaps because you don’t know what’s involved) then why are you complaining in the first place?
“I personally feel that the current plans presented by the President . . . ”
“OK, I have answered your question”
No, you haven’t. You’ve simply raised more objections.
“so can you lay out your plan?”
Once you’ve given a substantive answer to my question, sure.
Reality
January 17th, 2013
2:01 pm
@JB -
“Guns don’t kill people. People do.”
Meth doesn’t kill people. People do.
Cigarettes don’t kill people. People do.
Hey! This works for anything!!!
John
January 17th, 2013
2:02 pm
Bookman, why are you so predictable? Is there anything the liberals stand for that you don’t support? How do you feel about taxation without representation? At what point does affirmative action become too unpalatable for you? Why is it fair to call George W. Bush a monkey or o claim he’s dumb, yet anyone who opposes President Perfect is deemed a racist?
harvey
January 17th, 2013
2:03 pm
Name calling again Jay. You liberals think you have some kind of holier than thou right to denigrate people who actually know what they are talking about. This country isn’t sancrosanct, and we may need to overthrow the government some day.
Loves Me Some Obama Kool-Aid
January 17th, 2013
2:06 pm
JV, my problem with politics is that it is full of politicians. I tend to vote more on Social Values than my pocketbook so I lean more Conservative than Liberal. We could be here all day enumerating the flaws of ALL administrations. There is enough hypocrisy on both sides to go around. However, for me I believe that Obama’s social and economic policies are headed down the wrong road and when it comes to economic policies, he is Bush on steroids.
Granny Godzilla
January 17th, 2013
2:07 pm
harvey
xe is ready when you are!
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
2:07 pm
Blogs don’t kill people. People do.
crabbyjacket
January 17th, 2013
2:07 pm
Please explain how you have the moral right to determine how I defend myself, my family, and my property.
DannyX
January 17th, 2013
2:09 pm
“Why is it fair to call George W. Bush a monkey or o claim he’s dumb,…”
It’s not fair at all. Monkey’s are not nearly as dumb as George W Bush.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
2:10 pm
The socialists are coming! The socialists are coming!
Business executives like to portray the Obama administration as the “ most anti-business” in history, creating an “ increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.” However, the data tells a far different story. According to a Bloomberg News analysis, corporate profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, the most in the post-war era:
U.S. corporations’ after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II, and are now at their highest level relative to the size of the economy since the government began keeping records in 1947, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Profits are more than twice as high as their peak during President Ronald Reagan’s administration and more than 50 percent greater than during the late-1990s Internet boom, measured by the size of the economy.
Average annual corporate profit growth under Obama is the highest since 1900, whereas profit growth declined during both Bush presidencies. As a share of the economy, corporate profits have never been higher.
Regnad Kcin
January 17th, 2013
2:11 pm
“Name calling again Jay. You liberals think you have some kind of holier than thou right to denigrate people who actually know what they are talking about. This country isn’t sancrosanct, and we may need to overthrow the government some day.”
harvey, two thinngs.
First, where is this “name-calling” you’re accusing Jay of?
Second, How are you going to defeat the ploice/National Guard/ US Army in this imaginary revolution of yours?
TBS
January 17th, 2013
2:11 pm
Towncrier
How is it going today?
TomB
January 17th, 2013
2:11 pm
“Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.”
Thanks for pointing out the obvious Jay, and why all the gun control advocates are a bunch of hypocrites. That’s right Jay…Guns don’t kill. People do. Especially people who are mentally disturbed, and on psychotic drugs that are so prevalent and abused daily in our society today.As always, never any mention from you about how much our culture has changed over the past fifty or sixty years, or the level of violence found in Hollywood vs sixty years ago. It’s always guns that are the problem. Hogwash! Guns probably save more lives every year in self defense than contribute to any mass killings that always make the newspapers. How many times does your newspaper report on the number of lives saved because people have guns in our society. How many armed robberies have been prevented because someone had a gun?
And, you like most gun control advocates totally miss the point of the second amendment and that is self defense. You want to talk about defense against tyranny. Ok, because the most liberal founding father, Alexander Hamilton, did as well in his defense of the second amendment.
Hamilton said “This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens”.
Oops Jay, so much for that mythological claptrap. Hamilton is basically saying the citizens should be as well armed as the military.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
2:13 pm
“The best part of waking up
Is Folgers in your cup.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Chaser of Stars
January 17th, 2013
2:16 pm
“overweening.” That is about as arcane a word as you have ever used, Jay. I thought it meant that this was some person many would commonly call a “weenie” resorted to beating her chest and screaming to the top of her lungs about nothing. She would then be “overweening,” wouldn’t she?
td
January 17th, 2013
2:17 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
2:00 pm
I do not know what else to tell you. I personally do not think what is currently put on the table is worth doing so I am opposed to it. The only thing I heard Obama say yesterday that I approve of is the Feds to actually prosecute the gun offenses currently on the books and the Feds sharing data to make the background checks more meaningful. Putting armed guards at our schools I can accept that one as legislation as well, although I think the money should be offset by cuts in other areas.
Even Senate Dems are saying that they will not vote for bans on mags and “assault” (undefined term that is meaningless) weapons. How else am I suppose to answer you question?
Now can you please answer mine and lay out what you and other progressives would think is “meaningful” and “comprehensive” gun control?
southpaw
January 17th, 2013
2:18 pm
Reality @1:56
Interesting use of opposites. Maybe you can tell me a couple more.
What’s the opposite of “soft?” Is it “hard,” or is it “loud?”
What’s the opposite of “right?” Is it “left,” or is it “wrong?”
Don’t try to equate “conservative” with “mean” or “stingy.” If you bother to look up the actual words, not just the mutual antonym, you’ll see that they’re not synonymous.
Whatever Jay
January 17th, 2013
2:18 pm
I wonder if Jay Bookman would have the same reaction if congress was sniffing around making some changes to the FIRST amendment.
Cody
January 17th, 2013
2:19 pm
“Today, that is no longer the case, and it hasn’t been the case for a century or longer. Around the world, governments have access to a range of weaponry that private citizens have no hope of matching or withstanding.”
Insurrections don’t occur in a vacuum. The military does not exist in a monolithic bloc that decides to side with A or B. See Syria, see Libya. See the Vietcong. See the Taliban. See the Afghan insurgency in 1980. See the Lebanese militias that survived the Israeli invasion. See Al-Qaeda in Yemen. See the Yemeni military that aligned against president Saleh in 2011. See the terrorists in Mali. See the Somalis in Mogadishu 1993. See the Mexican Drug Cartels. See FARC. See ZIPRA against Rhodesia. See ZANLA against Rhodesia. See tiny and poor Eritrea against foreign-backed Ethiopia. See Somalis able to throw out Ethiopian soldiers. See Al-Shabaab in Somalia able to kill French Special Operators. See Russia smashed by the Chechnyans in the first Chechnyan Invasion. See Kurds continue to be an ulcer in the side of NATO member Turkey.
See Jay be stupid. Stupid, Jay, Stupid.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:20 pm
When w stole freedom there were massive protests.
Are you cons too old, fat and lazy to hit the streets in protest like the left?
Russ Prentice
January 17th, 2013
2:20 pm
Congratulations on taken Justice Scalia’s finding. Also it is good to see someone willing to interpret what Justice Scalia didn’t say.
True! Justice Scalia did state that small arms are no match for today’s advanced weaponry. However, the following section you omitted said, “But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
Jay
January 17th, 2013
2:20 pm
“Oops Jay, so much f or that mythological claptrap. Hamilton is basically saying the citizens should be as well armed as the military.”
—————————
OK, fine. Where do I go to get my F-35 fighter, my Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and my tank. Because again, if you want to rejuvenate the Second Amendment for this purpose, that’s what your going to have to do.
Oh, and you’ll also have to convince the Supreme Court, ALL of whom, including Scalia, say your interpretation is absurd.
Aser706
January 17th, 2013
2:21 pm
Reality:
Liberal – 1.Obsolete: Lacking moral constraint
2. Not literal or strict: Loose*
* explains the accuracy in your post.
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
2:21 pm
getalife
January 17th, 2013
1:38 pm
It is quite accurate to say that Obama has adopted most if not all of Bush’s tactics frequently referred to. He adopted Bush’s exit strategy and timing, has taken the drone/no quarter for killing innocents tactic to all new levels and despite rhetoric to the contrary, he is very supportive of unwarranted wire taps…what is so different?
DannyX
January 17th, 2013
2:21 pm
“The socialists are coming! The socialists are coming!”
The Tyrant in Chief forced home builders to go on a building spree in December!
“You will have to pry my nail gun from my cold dead hand!”
-Charlton Heston
“Obama wants to take away your nail guns!!!”
-td
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
2:21 pm
I wonder if Jay Bookman would have the same reaction if congress was sniffing around making some changes to the FIRST amendment.
I wonder how many more sock-puppets you’re gonna create to ask this question again and again and again and again….
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:22 pm
Get up off your old fat lazy butts and go protest cons.
Crying on a blog does not mean you are heard.
TomB
January 17th, 2013
2:23 pm
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms…”
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.
Mythological claptrap, Jay?
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
2:24 pm
JAY,
I’m I the last on to know that unlike many of the previous killers, the Sandy Hook coward was once institutionalized and was on a controversial anti-pyschotic..also, he tried to buy his own gun but wouldn’t agree to background checks. Knowing all of this, his mother still decided it was ok to teach him how to use guns…nevertheless, the guns were stolen…
Alsace
January 17th, 2013
2:25 pm
right wing gun crazies want big guns with lots of firepower to fight the government! Fight them for what–I’m not sure.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:25 pm
stevie,
BS, he ended both failed occupations, against torture and wanted to close gitmo but can’t because of torture.
Hit the streets and protest cons.
Crying on a blog does nothing.
Back up your bs with protests.
John Daly
January 17th, 2013
2:26 pm
Joe Hussein Mama I really hate to tell you, but dissenting opinions have no force of law, otherwise I would quote the dissent as my reason for not complying with Obamacare. As to the militia question, the holding says: (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.” If you go to the pages referenced you will find a more complete explanation.
yuzeyurbrane
January 17th, 2013
2:26 pm
td, your “slippery slop” theory is accurately named. Are you a bad speller or is Freud omnipresent?
Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom
January 17th, 2013
2:27 pm
Cody, how do all of you “See……..” make any difference in what goes on in the USA? Are you saying we’re jsut like Somalia, or Yemen, or any of the others?
When you decide that you need to revolt against all this oppression then go right ahead big boy.
td
January 17th, 2013
2:27 pm
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:22 pm
Get up off your old fat lazy butts and go protest cons.
Crying on a blog does not mean you are heard.
We do not have to go to the streets because we are smart enough to write and call our representatives and give our money to the NRA to have a unified fight on the issue.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
2:28 pm
southpaw — “JHM @1:05 Should I turn on my irony meter when I read anything besides the “Con Law” remark? “Consent of the governed” looks like you meant it, but that’s in the same document as “endowed by their Creator,” and you’ve pointed out that the Declaration of Independence isn’t the Constitution.”
A fair criticism, but covered in the Constitution itself. The clearest evidence of the “consent of the governed” in the Constitution is the mere fact that *voting* is in it. One couldn’t vote for the King in Britain, and the notion of Divine Right — that royalty had the unquestionable right and authority to rule — was directly repudiated by granting the public (although admittedly not *all* of the public) the right to vote for their leaders.
It seems rather odd to me that someone could think that the Constitution supports the idea of *removing* the notion of Divine Right from governance but also that of *leaving it in* as regards the source of individual and human rights. In short, if you’re not going to trust god to pick your king for you any longer, why would you trust him to pick your rights for you?
“BTW, as much as you’ve studied Constitutional law, how have you missed the Supreme Court’s use of the Federalist Papers in interpreting the Constitution? (For example, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1210&context=wmborj) The Constitution DOES mean what two or three Founding Fathers–James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and possibly John Jay–say it means.”
I’m aware of that, but I think that some jurists rely too much on the opinions of Founders with whom they agree, even if that Founder’s words are directly contradicted or contravened by the specific language of the Constitution itself.
I’ve seen the piece you linked before; it raises the rather unique notion that laws and practices at the State level could be ‘reverse-incorporated* to the Federal level, rather than the other way around, as is normally understood. There’s some precedent for this; the Full Faith and Credit Clause is probably going to wind up being how same-sex marriages become legal on a nationwide basis IMO. However, there’s more to it than this.
In writing recent decisions on this matter (this includes Heller), Justice Scalia in particular has been relying on the presence — in STATE law — of language that I believe he is looking to find that the FEDERAL level. And here’s where that reverse incorporation becomes tricky.
It was the case, in the very early days of our nation’s history, that several states DID explicitly guarantee a personal, individual right to bear arms, separate and distinct from any Federal pronouncement on the matter. That’s to say that if you lived in one of those states (I can only recall PA, VA and VT as having that guarantee just now, but there may be others), you had a personal right to own arms even if you weren’t in the militia. If you moved to NJ (assuming no such right was granted at the state level), you’d likely lose that right.
Now — had the Founders *wanted* that right at the Federal level, they could have explicitly granted it, in clear language, leaving out the matter about regulation and the militia and all that. But they didn’t — meaning that there was no such right expressed at the *Federal* level. IMO, Scalia’s trying to do an end-run around the lack of language and use this reverse-incorporation notion to find a Federal right that duplicates a State right.
Given that, we may be assured that Justice Scalia — and the other members of the 5-4 majority — will have no problem whatsoever in finding that there’s a nationwide right to same-sex marriages, won’t we?
When I was teaching Intro, the idea was to get the students to think *strictly* and *specifically* about the language they had to work with. In some cases, I explained, you might not be *able* to find an explicitly Constitutional justification for the right you’re trying to defend. In that case, they were expected to find *plausible* means of supporting a given right *without* relying on Constitutional language. In the case of the individual right to bear arms, the easiest way to defend it would be to call it an unenumerated right or to say that it could be granted at the state level (and this is still a remedy available to the states that don’t have it on the books). — thereby taking the Federal Constitution argument off the table, at least for the states doing that.
“Maybe you want to argue “But the Bill of Rights was written after the Federalist Papers! They didn’t talk about the amendments!” Maybe they didn’t. Did they talk about the militia at all (e.g. #29)?”
I agree that the Federalist Papers are an excellent tool for understanding context; I used them generously in my classes. But you have to bear in mind that the FPs were written from an *individual* point of view and that they don’t all form a coherent whole. Some of them disagree with each other.
“If you want to say they didn’t talk about the amendments, then maybe the militia they describe in Article 1 and Federalist #29 isn’t the militia described in the second amendment. You were looking for such a distinction earlier.”
Actually, I was looking for a distinction in the Constitution *itself.* Do you feel that you have found one?
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:29 pm
td,
Too old fat and lazy to protest like the left?
Robert
January 17th, 2013
2:30 pm
It is no longer acceptable to say – “My Gun is None of Your Business” and hide behind the 2nd amendment but have no respect for all the other amendments to the US Constitution.
This is the kind of attitiude that gun owners have and it is dis-respectful and counter-productive. I will not be intimidated by your child like behavior.
As your neighbor I have a right to know who is your gun registered to, what firearm training have you had, where do you store your gun(s) and who has the keys to your gun locker? if you are not a registered gun owner, never been through firearm training and your gun(s) are not in a secure locker I will dis-arm you with little or no difficulty for the safety of all our family, friends and neighbors.
I do not give a darn about your 2nd amendment rights. We can live in peace and harmony regardless of your child like behavior.
Russ Prentice
January 17th, 2013
2:31 pm
Here’s the so called text supporting Jay’s assertion:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
To my uneducated eye this reads, yes weaponry has advanced and small arms may be ineffective against the might of today’s sophisticated armor, but that said, the Second Amendment is unchanged in meaning.
But then perhaps I am reading it wrong!
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:31 pm
your utter lack of respect for our military is disgusting. they would never turn their weapons on their fellow Americans just because your radical leader ordered them to
Which, again, is why you don’t need private ownership of powerful weapons.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
2:33 pm
SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS!
TomB
January 17th, 2013
2:34 pm
OK, fine. Where do I go to get my F-35 fighter, my Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and my tank. Because again, if you want to rejuvenate the Second Amendment for this purpose, that’s what your going to have to do.
Oh, and you’ll also have to convince the Supreme Court, ALL of whom, including Scalia, say your interpretation is absurd.
Well, Jay you fail to miss one very important point. The greatest defenders of the second amendment other than our founding fathers are our brave individual soldiers that represent this great country. They know more than anyone what kind of country they are fighting for; they know the price that has already been paid by those who have preceded them with the ultimate sacrifice. And, I believe if you took a vote, our military men and women would tell you exactly how they feel about the second amendment. And, I guarantee you would not like their answer.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:34 pm
Why are the last four words of the Second Amendment holy gospel, but the first four words are merely a suggestion? I have yet to have anyone answer this.
Dig Cheney
January 17th, 2013
2:34 pm
Rise up Cons- Now1 That Black Muslim is sending Muslims and Black Pantherswith weapons of mass destruction out to get your guns! Some birdshot straight in the face is what we need! Rise UP!
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
2:35 pm
901st!
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
2:35 pm
As your neighbor I have a right to know who is your gun registered to, what firearm training have you had, where do you store your gun(s) and who has the keys to your gun locker? if you are not a registered gun owner, never been through firearm training and your gun(s) are not in a secure locker I will dis-arm you with little or no difficulty for the safety of all our family, friends and neighbors.
As MY neighbor you don’t have a right to ANY info. If you SUSPECT I may have a weapon and attempt to ‘disarm me” I will whip your arrogant stupid ass, toss you unceremoniously OFF my property and have you prosecuted for criminal trespass, all for the safely of MY family and neighbors.
It sounds to my like your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:35 pm
Where are the tea parties?
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2013
2:35 pm
“I wonder if Jay Bookman would have the same reaction if congress was sniffing around making some changes to the FIRST amendment.”
Probably not. Since “changes” to the 1st Amendment have ALREADY been made. Go shout “FIRE” in a crowded theater sometime and see how far you “freedom of speech” gets you.
Seriously Folks
January 17th, 2013
2:36 pm
Ok td, I’ll bite on the “list of things”
1) National registry of “automatic weapons”..aka assault rifles, to be held by your local Sherrif’s office
(does NOT include shotguns, or anything holding less than 10 bulletts)
2) Mandatory training for usage, storage and safety for all “automatic weapons” aka assault rifles to be completed annually at no charge to the gun owner
3) Extend registration of “private gun sales” to include a simple transaction to occur at local Sherrif’s office (similar to when you buy a car, you have to both be present to turn over the title)
4) Require all former felons to register any firearms purchased since release
5) Additionally minimum 20 years to sentence of any gun-related crimes (robbery, rape, drugs, whatever)
6) Move rating of any “gun related” video games from “T” to “M”…
7) Teach gun safety in public schools
9) Allow mental health professionals to report to local authorities anyone they suspect as “unstable” that has mentioned owning a gun, murderous thoughts (they have to report anyone that claims to be a pedophile)
First of all, that is MY list. I don’t own a gun, but have no qualms with anyone owning whatever they want….just realize your RIGHT comes with RESPONSIBILITY….
Be happy to hear you thoughts, td, on what I missed? (and I will admit I have no idea if any of these things are already being done or what)
moonbat betty
January 17th, 2013
2:37 pm
“Rise up Cons”
Heck Yeah,! Go Falcons! Beat the gold diggers!
Kam ,
Do the Sons of Confederate Veterans carry muskets or Bushmasters?
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 17th, 2013
2:37 pm
How is it that you need a background check to own a gun but not to run a country?
There is one. Its called an election.
Romney didn’t pass his.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:37 pm
New Rule: People now making the case that the military would not turn on its own citizens must 1) admit they got this as a talking point at some point in the last 24 hours and tell me who said it first and 2) admit that this is further evidence that private arms are unnecessary to defend against tyranny.
Sincerely, Adam the Rule Enforcer as ordained by TBG and others.
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
2:37 pm
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
2:33 pm
SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS!
You can forget that crap Kam lol. Jay said earlier he was off to the Capitol. I’m assuming it’s to view first hand the lunacy going on THERE. He won’t be back until late this afternoon and after spending all day there he’ll probably have to stop off at Manuels first and have a couple off stiff drinks………
Bob
January 17th, 2013
2:38 pm
I am glad we can listen to Scalia now. Many of the regulars eat this up yet have already blown off Scalia as a right wing nut job. Now you want to listen to him ? You can’t deny the framers mentioned felt gov may become oppressive and citizens may need to take action. I never saw in any of their writings that they only felt that way if the citizens had the exact same weaponry as the government did. Now I will dismiss Scalia just as the reat of you already have. Does anyone here believe the insurgents have the arms our military in Afghanistan has ? Osama Bin Laden turned away the USSR with guns and stinger missiles.
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
2:38 pm
MOONBAT!!!!!!!!!!!!
You left yesterday before you saw my posts………i was crushed.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:38 pm
tom,
The military is not all cons and you cons are too fat and lazy to even go protest.
Just give it a rest.
All talk,
Donnie
January 17th, 2013
2:38 pm
In Switzerland every male spends two years in the military then is given an AUTOMATIC rifle to keep till he turns 55. They have a much lower gun crimes than the USA.
If the bans were for the children the he should ban cigarettes and cars. More people die each day from smoking than are murdered in a year.
Just another feel good law out of Washington that will not stop a madman.
Get Real
January 17th, 2013
2:38 pm
Drama much Jay?? Feeling guilty that your savior is the most divisive president in US history…
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:39 pm
Doggone: Go shout “FIRE” in a crowded theater sometime and see how far you “freedom of speech” gets you.
Better yet, tell off your boss.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:39 pm
Feeling guilty that your savior is the most divisive president in US history…
Not Intended to Be a Factual Statement
moonbat betty
January 17th, 2013
2:40 pm
You go Fred.
independent thinker
January 17th, 2013
2:41 pm
Adam- It is because a right wing judge who already decided who will be president in 2000 also decided that the gun rights people should disregard the preamble to the second amendment so that he could rewrite the law and give them a fundamental right created by the judiciary and not the founders..All that stuff about the a regulated militia and a security of the state ? Claptrap by the founders.
That’s what Judges do (for their friends). Two hundred years of legal precedent and judicial restraint tossed out the window -That’s the rule of law if you are the NRA or a conservative.
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
2:41 pm
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:25 pm
You remain simply incapable of any coherent dialogue….
If you remain one of the sheep, the view never changes
Atticus
January 17th, 2013
2:41 pm
Irrelevant.
Agreed, times have changed. Change the 2nd Amendment then. Until then, liberals just want to win irrelevant arguments. This is NOT about guns. It’s about political agenda. Just like abortion, climate change, debt limit…..
I am embarrassed that this country is using children’s tragic deaths for political agenda….both sides. But it started with the freaking liberals.
Get Real
January 17th, 2013
2:41 pm
Adam
Please disengage head from rectum, wake up and smell your butt coffee
Real Scootter
January 17th, 2013
2:41 pm
Where are the tea parties?
getalife, who cares?
Where are the beer parties?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
2:41 pm
Fred
I think he’s back, check on the previous page 2:20 p.m.
I’ve heard report of up to 3″ of snow for me tonight, and the ATL has a chance of some too.
Got your eggs/milk/bread/beer?
John
January 17th, 2013
2:42 pm
Funny how this jackass manages to muster logic and data on the subject against gun ownership, but remains ignorant and illogical on all the overwhelming evidences surrounding everything else. Social programs….epic fail. Post office…fail, FDA fail, Medicare fail, Social Security Fail, in fact everything the government does it does poorly, yet this jackass manages to support government takeover.
If guns so bad why does the secret service protect the president with them, why do pilots have them, why do banks have armed guards. In fact the only places where guns are restricted are the places where attacks occur, schools and public places.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:42 pm
Donnie: If the bans were for the children the he should ban cigarettes and cars. More people die each day from smoking than are murdered in a year.
Then use a cigarette or a car as your primary method of hunting and self defense. Since, apparently, these things are more effective at killing.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
2:42 pm
In Switzerland every male spends two years in the military then is given an AUTOMATIC rifle to keep till he turns 55. They have a much lower gun crimes than the USA.
Tell us about the ammo, Donny. You know about the ammo, right?
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:43 pm
Get Real: Please disengage head from rectum, wake up and smell your butt coffee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Atticus
January 17th, 2013
2:43 pm
“In fact, the piling on by the political left, and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The second amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president.”–Rick Perry
Agreed Governor
moonbat betty
January 17th, 2013
2:43 pm
“You left yesterday before you saw my posts”
Sorry, Fred.
I’ll take a look.
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
2:43 pm
Does anyone here believe the insurgents have the arms our military in Afghanistan has ? Osama Bin Laden turned away the USSR with guns and stinger missiles.
Gosh Bob, aren’t YOU the bright one. I know that there isn’t a SINGLE Arab Country or arms dealer supplying sophisticated weaponry to the Afghan’s. I mean the German’s and French and Chinese sure as hell would help them. I mean they didn’t sell stuff to Iraq…….. or wait, they did.
Turn off talk radio and FOX and learn to think for yourself Bob. Repeating their stupidity makes YOU look stupid as well.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
2:44 pm
In Switzerland every male spends two years in the military then is given an AUTOMATIC rifle to keep till he turns 55.
Got any idea where they keep the bullets?
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:44 pm
John: If guns so bad why does the secret service protect the president with them,
Yeah! And why does the President get to command an army and sign bills into law?!?!?! HOW UNFAIR!!!
Here’s a quick question: How many foreign and domestic death threats do you and your family get per day?
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
2:44 pm
Since Donnie doesn’t know jack about how those cuckoo clock folk manage their gun ownership issue, I’ll give Donnie a linkee.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/
Aser706
January 17th, 2013
2:44 pm
Robert:
The Fourh Amendment Protects My Right to Privacy From You and The Information You Demand.
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
2:44 pm
ADAM
He clearly isn’t the most devisive but he has no small share of moments….the trend in DC is polarization…he certainly has done nothing to change that..He would serve us and himself by actually spending time in Congress and building personal relationships…toward that end, he reminds me of Tiger Woods in that his rep amongst most other golfers is crap because he carries himself as too important to hang with the guys..
Fred ™
January 17th, 2013
2:45 pm
moonbat, don’t bother, too much trash to wade through. It was a laugh at your playing the video backwards and talk about the ribs I was doing.
Steve
January 17th, 2013
2:45 pm
Rick Perry? The closeted homosexual unpopular governor from a traitorous state that takes in more Federal money then it pays out in taxes and wants to secede from the Union? Really? The guy is a complete buffoon.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:45 pm
stevie,
Truth hurt much.
Real Scooter,
They protested ObamaCare but not guns.
Weak tea. Perhaps they are too drunk to protest.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
2:45 pm
Sumbitch
dB was quicker on the draw — again.
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
2:46 pm
Aser706
January 17th, 2013
2:44 pm
Unfortunately like BUSH before him, BO can and will tap your phone without warrant..
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:47 pm
Stevie Ray: He clearly isn’t the most devisive but he has no small share of moments….the trend in DC is polarization…he certainly has done nothing to change that..
Yes, but not for lack of trying. The point is the polarization is not his FAULT and he isn’t as much of a star player of that game as people make him out to be.
Steve
January 17th, 2013
2:47 pm
Where does it say that any Amendment can’t be limited or subject to limitations, in the Constitution? Why do you think we have a SCOTUS??
Bubba
January 17th, 2013
2:47 pm
This explains it all:
http://men.webmd.com/news/20060728/guns-up-testosterone-male-aggression
Keep it up NRA!
Cosby
January 17th, 2013
2:47 pm
Give an inch and The elite in DC will take a mile. Jay, when you go after the nut job in the white house that supplied weapons to the Drug Cartells in Mexico, then come talk to me about my rights. Perhaps it is time for a framnk discussion of Responsibility, Accountability and putting “GOD” and “PRAYER” back into our lives in lieu of hate speech out of DC. Yes, the 2nd amendment is there for a reason, just ask the Jews in Hitler’s Germany or other countries that gave up their right to protect themselves. Once again you have it all wrong – it is America’s culture generated by the nut jobs in DC. not guns!!!
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
2:48 pm
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:45 pm
What truth was that exactly? That your obligatory “cons suck” theme has any relevancy?
Baaaaa Baaaaa
Pizzaman
January 17th, 2013
2:48 pm
922 has to be the largest response I’ve seen to date. Way to go Jay! You obviously hit the nerve with the gun wackos. The one thing they can’t stand is reason. Keep up the good!
JamVet
January 17th, 2013
2:48 pm
…the most divisive president in US history…
Don’t blame BHO, get bent.
Millions of us Americans think you counterfeit conservatives and would be traitors stink on ice!
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:48 pm
Bubba: http://men.webmd.com/news/20060728/guns-up-testosterone-male-aggression
Well sh*t, maybe I SHOULD get an AR-15… I would avoid later having to tak one of those Low T drugs….
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
2:48 pm
Ta-Nehisi links to the wiki page on those gun-nutty Swiss with some comments of his own, just FYI:
http://www.theatlantic.com/ta-nehisi-coates/
Robert
January 17th, 2013
2:48 pm
@Fred -”As MY neighbor you don’t have a right to ANY info. If you SUSPECT I may have a weapon and attempt to ‘disarm me” I will whip your arrogant stupid ass, toss you unceremoniously OFF my property and have you prosecuted for criminal trespass, all for the safely of MY family and neighbors.”
Fred, thank you for taking off your sheet, hood and combat boots. Your family, friends and neighbors know who you are (coward hiding behind a gun). It takes tremendous courage to act like a Man and not like a child. Your comments prove you act like a child. If you own gun(s) I really hope the State of GA did a back ground check on you. Obviously you need a mental health screening and a anger management class.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
2:49 pm
…the nut job in the white house that supplied weapons to the Drug Cartells in Mexico…
2006 Operation Wide Receiver says, “What?”
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
2:49 pm
whoopsi. Here’s the specific link I meant to post @ 2.48, sorry.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/more-guns-less-crime-the-switzerland-example/267165/
td
January 17th, 2013
2:49 pm
Robert
January 17th, 2013
2:30 pm
It is no longer acceptable to say – “My Gun is None of Your Business” and hide behind the 2nd amendment but have no respect for all the other amendments to the US Constitution.
This is the kind of attitiude that gun owners have and it is dis-respectful and counter-productive. I will not be intimidated by your child like behavior.
As your neighbor I have a right to know who is your gun registered to, what firearm training have you had, where do you store your gun(s) and who has the keys to your gun locker? if you are not a registered gun owner, never been through firearm training and your gun(s) are not in a secure locker I will dis-arm you with little or no difficulty for the safety of all our family, friends and neighbors.
I do not give a darn about your 2nd amendment rights. We can live in peace and harmony regardless of your child like behavior.
Fine, then I have the right to see if you are on welfare and come into your house and make sure you are being a good steward of my money. I have the right to come into your house and make sure you are not eating the wrong foods or smoking because I will have to pay for the consequences of your behavior. I have the right to read your emails to make sure you are not out having sex with other people because that risky behavior may result in you getting aids and my tax payer money would have to pay for it as well.
How long so you want to keep these BS arguments going on?
Oscar
January 17th, 2013
2:50 pm
Why are the last four words of the Second Amendment holy gospel, but the first four words are merely a suggestion? I have yet to have anyone answer this.
______
Because there is big money for Colt, S & W, and other small arms makers in selling guns to private individuals.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:50 pm
lil stevie,
When are you going top protest?
Just talk?
Just blah, blah, blah.
You cons are weak.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:51 pm
white house that supplied weapons to the Drug Cartells in Mexico
Not factual. The DOJ didn’t CREATE straw buyers, or tell dealers to go ahead and sell to them. Instead, they watched and when they saw straw purchasing happening, attempted to prosecute but were told they had no grounds to prosecute because of a legal loophole known in some circles as “a person who buys a gun with intent to keep it and then changes his mind five seconds later” according to legal precedent.
Get your facts right.
Oscar
January 17th, 2013
2:52 pm
It is bs because no one is going to vote to amend or delete the second amendment.
Sensible gun restrictions can be passed, still letting those who are responsible and want guns to own them. As long as they are registered, locked up and kept out of the hands of people who should not have them.
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
2:52 pm
Cosby
January 17th, 2013
2:47 pm
god and prayer? You have to be kidding? I think most would agree that hope and prayer are not exactly meaningful tactics…
It would be great to be around for the second coming of JC..he could heal us all and no longer would national healthcare be needed.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 17th, 2013
2:52 pm
td — “Now can you please answer mine and lay out what you and other progressives would think is “meaningful” and “comprehensive” gun control?”
Well, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, so you’re going to have to accept that this isn’t what *everyone* on the left wants. Heck, it might even be what ten percent of us want — it’s just my personal opinion.
I’d like to see *classes* of firearm licenses that restrict the types of arms that a person can have, and written and practical tests required for license upgrades or adds. Perhaps the NRA could help develop the tests at each stage. There could be classifications for Home Defense, Skeet and Target, Small/Medium Game Hunting, Big Game Hunting, Subsistence Hunting, and Firearms Dealer. Each level would have some sort of restrictions regarding what sorts of weapons you could have, but you could have more than one type of license at a time. Military or law enforcement experience should give you some sort of leg up when obtaining or renewing your license.
I think you should have to renew your license periodically, but certainly not every year. Perhaps once every 10 years until you get old — then more frequently (as your vision gets worse).
I think we should start over from the ground up with gun licenses and CC permits. I’d give people five years from the date the legislation goes live to get their licenses and permits reissued with the new, stiffer standards — or you lose your license/permit, no questions asked. Part of the permitting process would include disclosure of all weapons you own, including registration numbers. You’d also sign a legal affidavit, meaning that you’d stand to suffer legal penalties if you didn’t disclose everything. When renewing, you’d re-verify all those weapons (to ensure nothing had been lost or stolen).
I think that private transfers of firearms — e.g. private sales — should be outlawed unless you use an authorized gun dealer to facilitate the purchase. The dealer would run the proper checks on both the buyer and seller, and would file the proper paperwork. Perhaps the dealer could receive a small commission for his trouble.
If you want to sell a banned weapon (but which has been grandfathered so you can keep it), you can only sell it to the Federal government.
I think there should be STRONG enforcement of all Federal and state gun laws, and a points system in place, like there is with drivers’ licenses. Maybe you haven’t committed any firearms felonies, but if you commit enough related misdemeanors in a short enough period of time, you could lose your license.
I don’t like this next provision, but I think it’s necessary. If you’re a self-loader (e.g. you reload your own ammo), or if you’re into black-powder/muzzle-loader weapons, then I think you should have a license for that and I think there should be some quantity restrictions on how much powder you can buy per month.
Private mail order or internet firearm or ammo sales — FELONY. If you need to order something through the mail, you have to have an authorized dealer act as your delivery agent (it gets delivered to him and you have to go pick it up from him (and register it on the spot if it is a weapon).
Any automatic weapons or weapons that can be *modified* to become automatic (that are in non-government hands) have to have their rifling/cartridge/ejector markings on file with the ATF so they can be traced if they’re used in a crime.
I’ve got other ideas, but I think these should give you an idea of where I’m coming from.
John B. of Lincolnton
January 17th, 2013
2:53 pm
I like the links to web sites that purport to tell the “real reason” for the 2nd amendment. If it’s on the internet it must be true….and I’m a French model. The 2nd amendment was intended to help deter and overzealous government from taking our rights away either by force or by edict.
As a retired member of our great military I gave my oath to preserve and protect the CONSTITUTION of the United States from ALL enemies both foreign AND domestic. That being said, I believe that the majority of those in the military wouldn’t look kindly on a president who shreds the Constitution and so the idea that those of us with limited weapons (I have a very sharp pocket knife) cannot address the situation is wrong because, I believe, those military members would stand with us (along with their very powerful weapons).
To the issue of gun control. I am a member of the NRA. I believe we need to do a better job of getting help to those who are nutty. I think we need to enforce the laws we have and, as requested by Obama, stiffen the penalties now in place. We also need parents who give a crap about their kids. Teach them about guns and make them an evil mystery. Guns are not evil, some people are evil. The NRA has a very good program for kids called Eddie Eagle. As a child I was taught how to use a rifle and what NOT to do by my father. We carried rifles to school in our pickups because we went hunting in the mornings.
I guess basically I am trying to say is that we need sensible gun laws but outlawing guns because of the way they look or reducing the number of bullets in a magazine isn’t going to do one thing to stop violent people. Look at the areas with most stringent gun laws (Chicago, DC). Those laws haven’t done anything but make innocent men, women and children more vulnerable to the criminals.
moonbat betty
January 17th, 2013
2:54 pm
Fred, that’s a good technique on the ribs.
Wood chunks vs. chips:
If you are smoking libs, you want to use chunks. They are great when you are doing a low and slow burn, but you can still add chips as you go if you need more smoke.
If you are smoking cons, use chips. They are great when you are doing a short cook – you don’t waste the chunks and you can add the chips as needed to increase the smoke.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:55 pm
The 2nd amendment was intended to help deter [an] overzealous government from taking our rights away either by force or by edict.
Yes, but not the government created by the founding fathers. A government that is invading or a tyrant that is attempting to rise up, yes. But arming yourself and attacking the U.S. government is still treason, which is in the Constitution as well. Before the amendments.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 17th, 2013
2:55 pm
Because there is big money for Colt, S & W, and other small arms makers in selling guns to private individuals.
And the NRA’s main purpose is to protect those profits at all costs.
Aser706
January 17th, 2013
2:56 pm
Phones were being tapped long before Bush… Kennedy and Johnson authorized Hoover listen to everyone.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
2:56 pm
That being said, I believe that the majority of those in the military wouldn’t look kindly on a president who shreds the Constitution
Nothing that Obama signed yesterday via EO or proposed as legislation “shreds the Constitution,” for crying out loud.
Reality
January 17th, 2013
2:56 pm
@Southpaw and Aser706,
Because you don’t like the definitions given by Websters International Dictionary you attack me?
Grow up!
smitty
January 17th, 2013
2:56 pm
It’s sad that Americans would allow their rights to be given away. Those rights were fought for with blood and they are so casually given away.
There is no evidence of the framers of the Constitution only granting the right to keep and bear arms to members of an organized militia.
getalife
January 17th, 2013
2:56 pm
The gop cut mental health facilities to the bone so you can protest that too cons but I know you are just hot air.
Our President can say he does not see any protests so he will not listen to just hot air on a blog.
Doggone/GA
January 17th, 2013
2:56 pm
“Better yet, tell off your boss”
That too! Or even break one Jay’s rules here
pete
January 17th, 2013
2:57 pm
Oh look, 7 more Americans either killed or or captured by some more bad guys, this time in Algeria. I wonder what this POS pres is going to do now. So far he has done nothing, which is normal and to be expected, but it has only been 2 days, have to give him time to come up with a response. It took him 4 months for Benghazi…oh yeah…he didn’t do anything about that either.
Jm
January 17th, 2013
2:57 pm
Man
It is NRA 24-7 here
Jay
The sons of confederate veterans are restless
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
2:57 pm
If you are smoking cons, use chips.
Smoked cons?
Get Real
January 17th, 2013
2:57 pm
“Yes, but not for lack of trying. The point is the polarization is not his FAULT and he isn’t as much of a star player of that game as people make him out to be”
Keep on rationalizing Adam; the most divisive president in US history by far
Real Scootter
January 17th, 2013
2:58 pm
Weak tea. Perhaps they are too drunk to protest
Or they finally figured out they are irrelevant.
Redcoat
January 17th, 2013
2:58 pm
“How is it that you need a background check to own a gun but not to run a country?”
For liberals, It’s when you are in control, you get to make the exceptions……….
curious
January 17th, 2013
2:58 pm
The Government of Switzerland knows where every single one of those weapons are and the person possessing that weapon has had military training. It’s probably a safe bet to say that criminals, mental misfits, and folks with moral issues are rejected from the military and therefore don’t have a weapon.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:58 pm
Doggone: Or even break one Jay’s rules here
Good one!
Stevie Ray
January 17th, 2013
2:58 pm
Adam
January 17th, 2013
2:47 pm
Not his fault…most of the previous presidents spent a lot of time on the hill forging relationships on both sides. He has spent less time than any other president doing such.
Not his fault…so he is not capable of overcoming personal differences?
Not his fault? For 4 years that’s all we have heard…nothing is his fault…I guess he and all his supporters feel his legacy will be safe as long as his legacy always includes the comparison to Bush…why not compare him to clinton or other presidents who are generally thought to be effective?
barking frog
January 17th, 2013
2:58 pm
will the Feinstein bill pass ? I say yes but modified. 10 round magazines.
private sales background check. doctor info into database.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
2:58 pm
this is a good article IF you were a speech writer for Obama. as a journalist, dang this is lame.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
2:59 pm
frog – how do YOU propose you even know about private sales if you are the feds? last time YOU saw an FBI agent in the flesh?
Jm
January 17th, 2013
2:59 pm
“You cons are weak.”
You mean employed.
Seriously Folks
January 17th, 2013
2:59 pm
Hey JMH, I took on the “challenge” too and offered a list…think we have some of the same thoughts…who would have thought “progressives” would actually respect someone’s right to own a weapon, just ask that they have some sort of responsibility with that ownership!
Now to see how others will interpret…..or shoot down as “that will lead to……”
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
2:59 pm
liberals can’t hold fellow liberals accountable.
Get Real
January 17th, 2013
2:59 pm
The same goes for you Jammie Poo
independent thinker
January 17th, 2013
3:00 pm
Judicial activism at work:
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"The problem with originalism’s use of history in constitutional interpretation is when the materials are dense and often contradictory. It is precisely in this area that Wilkinson’s critique is most penetrating. In Heller, for example, the majority opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia meticulously and honestly reviewed the historical record regarding the Second Amendment and concluded that it contained an individual right to bear arms. The dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens meticulously and honestly reviewed the historical recorded and concluded that the right was not individual but a collective, militia-related protection. How does the Court, through its most conservative members, boldly declare a new right when the historical basis is too difficult to sort out—far too difficult for justices who have no formal training as historians?
The Heller majority then extended its novel reading of the Second Amendment to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in McDonald v. City of Chicago. In the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court invoked the established law on incorporation and applied the right invented in Heller to all levels of government. The problem is that incorporation is nothing more than a judicially manufactured revolution with no historical justification. An originalist may, as a matter of broken-eggs-can-not-be-mended prudence, accept that various provisions of the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated as a legal reality that is not going away. But why would originalists extend this dubious doctrine? The Court is now the final word on trigger locks, concealed-carry laws, and a host of other knotty regulations for which it has no competence. McDonald resembles nothing so much as a product of the results-driven jurisprudence of the Warren Court.”"”"”"”"”"”"”"
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/03/4706/
You can tell tell the activists are creating new law and legislating from the bench when practically all of the decision in Heller relies on state constitutions and state decisions.And Scalia calls himself a literalist!
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 17th, 2013
3:00 pm
this is a good article IF you were a speech writer for Obama. as a journalist, dang this is lame.
Peggy Noonan says, “What?”
getalife
January 17th, 2013
3:01 pm
Too much fat on con’s ribs moonbat.
Paddy O
January 17th, 2013
3:01 pm
adam – the attacking the federal gov’t argument a strawman proposed by liberals as a means of obfuscation.
stands for decibels
January 17th, 2013
3:01 pm
Man
It is NRA 24-7 here
Jay
The sons of confederate veterans are restless
Jay, I [gulp] agree with Jm.
And that in itself is, well, this.
Adam
January 17th, 2013
3:01 pm
Stevie Ray: None of your arguments really effectively lay fault of the nation’s polarization at the feet of one man.
In addition, as I said, he’s not exactly very good at stoking it, unless you consider that conservatives make contradicting predictions of him and whenever he does something within that broad brush, they declare polarization all his fault.
You may disagree with that last part, but tell me that you really think the polarization in our political environment is the fault of just Obama? By himself? Or that he leads the charge somehow? Not even close.
curious