NRA President: No Way an Assault Weapons Ban Will Pass…Unless Obama Uses ‘All the Power of His Office’
Getty Images
National Rifle Association President David Keene said Sunday he doesn’t think there’s enough support to get a new assault weapons ban passed in Congress, unless President Barack Obama uses “all the power of his office” and changes the game.
Keene said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that there’s not enough legislative support for another ban “right now,” but that might not necessarily hold.
“When a president takes all the power of his office and he’s willing to expend political capital, you don’t want to make predictions — you don’t want to, you don’t want to bet your house on the outcome,” Keene said. “I would say that the likelihood is that they’re not going to be able to get an assault weapons ban through this Congress.”
Keene said he doesn’t think regulations on high-capacity ammunition clips are likely either, saying they would be difficult to regulate because they’re so widespread.
“Even David Gregory could find one,” he said, after the NBC host was investigated by Washington, D.C. police for holding a magazine up on television last month.
Vice President Joe Biden is set to deliver his recommendations to Obama on dealing with gun violence following the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. Recommendations could include universal background checks and restrictions on the types of weapons and magazines people are allowed to own.
“The fact is that we live in a society where first of all, we have constitutional rights, and secondly, there are millions upon millions of Americans who value the rights that they have under the Second Amendment…and we think they’re going to be heard,” Keene said.
–
Related:
In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.
Popular Stories
‘Bigoted, Religious [Zealots]‘: High School Senior Allegedly Expelled, Charged With Felonies Over Gay Relationship With ‘Consenting’ Fellow Student 1,019 Comments
‘The Daily Show’ Creator Makes Outrageously Offensive Anti-Conservative Joke About Okla. Tornado 455 Comments
Washington Times Writer: Fox News Scandal Goes ‘Much Deeper,’ W.H. Sitting on Something Top Obama Aides ‘Terrified’ About 424 Comments
University Will Investigate Christian Professor’s Intelligent Design Class Following Atheist Furor 307 Comments
See the First Behind-the-Scenes Photos as Beck and Mercury One Survey the Damage in Okla. 227 Comments
Faith
-
How Can God Let Tragedies Like the Okla. Tornado Exist? Pastors Weigh In
Read More
-
Is This Video of Pope Francis Performing an Exorcism?
Read More
-
Boston Cardinal Snubs Irish PM Over Abortion Support
Read More
- Incredible: The Moment a Woman’s Dog Emerges from Rubble During TV Interview Right After She Describes Losing Him 205 Comments
-
See the First Behind-the-Scenes Photos as Beck and Mercury One Survey the Damage in Okla.
227 Comments
Business
-
Here are the 5 Most Interesting Moments from Tuesday’s Hearing on the IRS Scandal
Read More
-
Jay Carney Shifts IRS Timeline (Again!)
Read More
-
Top IRS Official at Center of Political Targeting Scandal Will Plead the Fifth
123 Comments
-
Disgraced IRS Interim Chief Now Fully Admits Knowledge of Planted Question (but Did It Reveal a Past Half-Truth?)
Read More
-
Ex-IRS Chief: I Have No Idea How This Conservative Targeting Happened
Read More
Technology
-
The Incredible Role Facebook Played in the Aftermath of Devastating Okla. Tornado
Read More
-
Tech Company Demonstrates Remote Disabling of a ‘Smart Gun’
Read More
-
Meet the Blind Man Nicknamed ‘Midnight Gunslinger’ Who Has 80% Shot Accuracy
Read More
-
How a $4.5 Million Network of 181 Sirens Helped Save Lives in Oklahoma Twister
Read More
-
See the Record-Setting Python a Man Caught With His Bare Hands (and Guess How Much It Weighed)
Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (343)
Guitar Master
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:22pmzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
From THE REPORTER
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Friends, there is no need for all this debate crap, what’s there to debate?
We have our guaranteed right the 2nd Amendment gives us, END OF STORY.
They want debate because it gives people 2nd thoughts. Go ahead and play into their hands you jerks.
Mr. Obama can sign an executive order banning guns if he wants to but it will be illegal, as other’s he’s signed are.
Case closed. . . end of subject.
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:26pmA well REGULATED militia…. yes you oppose gun REGULATIONS?
Report this comment
wherefromhere
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:48pmI am looking forward to Barry coming for the guns and his attempt to put us all in chains. We as a nation with our national stand of killing innocent children and the accepting of the pervert lifestyle will lead us all as a nation deservedly so, into slavery. Individually we may seek salvation and Gods grace through his son Jesus. Or we could move against the current ruling class and break their back. Choose you this day whom you will serve. One or the other. By the way I do hate homosexuals and I hope you don’t like it and judge me as less than you. I’ll take my chances. Thank you so much. I hope I haven’t hurt your delicate sensibilities.
Report this comment
Jive Mickey
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:50pmThe big mistake that everyone makes is believing that the Second Amendment GUARANTEES our right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment guarantees two things: Diddley and Squat!
What guarantees our rights is our willingness and ability to prosecute and imprison; drag out and tar & feather; hang and yes, shoot if necessary; any of those who attempt to take those rights from us.
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:51pmK33 : Obama loves his “regulations.” Gives him so much more power over every facet of our society.
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:57pmI thought that “well regulated” meant having good continence back in the mid 1700′s LOL.
Report this comment
Jive Mickey
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:58pmKEATONC33,
Don’t try to spread that crap. “Regulated” meant TRAINED and ORGANIZED … NOT REGULATED INTO INEFFECTIVE OBLIVION as is the current GOVERNMENT definition. WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE???? The RIGHT of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED … period … bottom line … leave it the hell alone. Regardless of the reasoning, there is a bottom line … i.e. “Thou Shalt Not Run A Red Light”. Just try to explain to the cop that there was no other traffic to cause a collision in the intersection, see what happens.
Report this comment
Walkabout
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:59pmKeatonc33
A well REGULATED militia…. yes you oppose gun REGULATIONS?
***
You are not trying to regulate anything. You are trying to ban it.
Your ally is Hand Gun Control incorporated & they are for an outright ban. Their president said they would take it step by step.
That makes you an accomplice Keaton.
Report this comment
KernelOfTruth
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:00pm“A well REGULATED militia…. yes you oppose gun REGULATIONS?”
Do you even know what the word “REGULATED” means in this context? As in “.. regulated militia …”?
Report this comment
hatchetjob
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:02pmWHEREFROMHERE, I appreciate your honesty and our free speech liberties while we still have them.
Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:03pmMore union thug’s and national debt. Police state?http://weaselzippers.us/2013/01/13/surprise-white-house-considering-expanding-federal-funding-for-cops-in-schools/
Report this comment
right-wing-waco
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:03pm@ Keatonc33
“A well REGULATED militia…. yes you oppose gun REGULATIONS?”
“Regulated” in this Amendment means “trained” & “organized”. The only regulations we need is to keep guns from felons and crazies.
Report this comment
Uechi
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:05pmSorry, dialog is better then gunfire. The discussion is not for people who believe in or know the 2nd Amendment it is for all those that aren’t lefties and may be sitting on the fence for lack of knowledge. I continually hear the words “assault rifle”, clips, magazines, auto, and semi-auto and many people don’t have a clue. There are lots of people that have an agenda and obfuscate the facts but there are also the uneducated. How many times have you heard gun control used in terms of hunting or sportsmen’s rights? In many cases it is deliberate, in many it is ignorance, Discussion on any topic doesn’t make you a jerk and you are a jerk for suggesting it does.
Report this comment
banjarmon
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:08pm@ Keatonc33
Read the whole Second Amendment
The Second Amendment – Right to Bear Arms. 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 RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE …What part of this do you not understand????
Report this comment
mercenary4freedom
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:10pmKEATON, first of all you misconstrue the term “well regulated militia”. The definition of A “WELL REGULATED MILITIA” meaning well regulated and organized within themselves. To be efficient with their weapons and equipment, proficient with those weapons and equipment. To be able to fire those wepons and be on the mark, to be effective with their offensive and definsive tactics and operations. To be organized within their ranks, to know the chain of command and to understand and practice military protocol even thuough they are a civilian force.
I have heard you libs time after time take the definition of a “well regulated militia” out of context. You all believe that to be regulated by the government. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
Man, you people must love the govt’s boot on your necks don’t you? I am convinced you people love to be regulated & kept as a slave to out of control, intoxicated with power authoritarians.
Report this comment
Fat Hubie
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:13pmDon’t worry about “regulated”, KEATONC33. Try to focus on “NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE”. Feel better now?
Report this comment
mercenary4freedom
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:15pmThis is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.
I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.
What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take **** off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?
Every law abiding patriot needs to read this, this is something you all need to consider.
http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/
Report this comment
darkknight91
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:16pmI love it when liberals bring up the ‘regulated militia’ text, as if they support militias in the first place. The amendment is merely stating that since a militia is necessary to defend ourselves against tyranny, private citizen’s right to bear arms shall not be infringed so they will possess said arms when the time comes to assemble and fight tyranny if necessary. Liberals have labeled militias as extremist kooks, but love to bring it up when tearing down gun rights. Nice try but you need to try a lot harder.
Report this comment
John.Galt
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:19pmUnfortunately, the case is not closed, as the insane are currently running the asylum, and at least half of the sheeple are asleep.
For some reason, NOBODY in the media brings up the fact that the OBAMA admin was selling “ASSAULT RIFLES” TO MEXICAN DRUG LORDS, but for us serfs, he wants to ban them. It doesn’t matter to the minds of mush lib-tards that the THOUSANDS of guns he let walk have KILLED MORE PEOPLE in the last 4 years than the 3 MILLION+ LEGALLY OWNED “ASSAULT” RIFLES HAVE KILLED HERE IN THE LAST 50.
Besides, isn’t it obvious? THE LEFT HATES POOR PEOPLE. THE RICH CAN STILL HIRE BODY GUARDS, AND OBAMA AND HIS ILK GET THE BEST BODY GUARDS TAXPAYER MONEY CAN BUY! US POOR SERFS CAN USE SHARPENED STICK I GUESS.
Report this comment
woodnut
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:23pmkeatonc33, I think you are under the impression that you have just laid down a trump card with your comment about a ‘regulated militia’. Let me play a card of higher rank. A regulated militia in colonial times did not refer to regulations or rules of gun ownership placed on its’ members. I do not think such gun regulations were even conceived of at that time.
Think ‘regular’ as in regimented and trained in common tactics and methods. Many of the farmers and common citizens contributed to the war effort but did not have the formal training.
Report this comment
banjarmon
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:24pm@ mercenary4freedom
Every hunter in America .is a well trained marksman and sniper. Our front line is behind any object that we shoot from, Therefore a gun may behind every tree!
Report this comment
jakartaman
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:28pmI agree – The 2nd amendment was made for exactly this reason – to overthrow and over-reaching tyrannical government.
Hello!
Report this comment
000degrees
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:35pm4Freedom…I’ll take 20% of the population who are still willing to preserve and protect at all costs…
Typically thats all you ever get when the heavy lifting needs to get done. I’ll lift with you…
Semper Fi
Report this comment
Jim S
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:42pm..No NO..keep the fear mongering going…AFT will be at your your door..the President is the administrator of the laws passed by the House and Senate..he does not make law..he can enforce the laws enacted by Congress..God this is what happens when you stop teaching Civics and teach Social Studies instead..no one knows how their govt. works…apparently some people think the President can amend or ignore the Constitution…look up Nixon..he tried to…Barry has done ZERO on this topic and can do little…the Congress can do a lot more WITH the approval of the Judicial branch…so far only talking heads and the Internet is beating themselves up over this…keep in mind, a coffee can, some thick gage wire and a press and you can make 20-30 round clips all day…now why the heck you need a 20 round clips to protect you and yours is a legit question..19th century technology is hard to prevent..kinda here boys…
Report this comment
SandTrout
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:44pm@KEATONC33
Yes, the militia is supposed to be well regulated, by the state.
The people, and THEIR right to keep and bear arms however, are not. It’s hilarious how some people like to snip out bits of the constitution to make it say what they want while ignoring EXTREMELY relevant bits in between.
Report this comment
Mic68
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:45pmA 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 Militia must be necessarily regulated , The Right of the People shall not be infringed.
Report this comment
db321
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:48pmThis Video testimony of Suzanna Hupp before Congress as she describes her parents getting gunned down at a Restaurant in Waco TX – Powerful Story in support of the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis
End of Story – the 2nd Amendment must stand.
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:56pm@WHEREFROMHERE
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:48pm
Or we could move against the current ruling class and break their back. Choose you this day whom you will serve.
@JIVE MICKEY
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:50pm
The big mistake that everyone makes is believing that the Second Amendment GUARANTEES our right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment guarantees two things: Diddley and Squat!
What guarantees our rights is our willingness and ability to prosecute and imprison; drag out and tar & feather; hang and yes, shoot if necessary; any of those who attempt to take those rights from us.
——————————————————–
2 Great posts. Outstanding.
Especially this line:
“Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. ”
There are no pacts between lions and men.
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:”
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:02pmRegulated definition V. Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations. Look we all know the 2nd amendment is as up for interpretation as anything. What we need is a definition on “arms” being as so many arms are already illegal, machine guns, rocket launchers etc etc. why would a semi auto ban be any different? No one is talking about abolishing all guns there for you still have a right to bear arms!
Report this comment
NHwinter
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:02pmThis video is an expose on all the people Obama has known and surrounds himself with to transform America. Truly a must watch. Please take the time to view and share it. America must be informed.
https://vimeo.com/52009124
Report this comment
sillyfreshness
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:09pmAll the powers of the president that really aren’t there. The president doesn’t have the power to legislate, only congress does. The president can only enforce the laws, hence the executive branch. Congress has gotten lazy and let the president do unconstitutional things via executive orders. Obama is going to push is new found power to the edge. Either he will have near dictatorial powers or he will be stopped either through a secessionist movement or civil war. Personally I think Obama will become the dictator he’s dreamed of, because the public has been so indoctrinated that socialism is good that they will go along “for the greater good” collectivist mentality. I hope I’m wrong, but after this last election, I have little faith in Americans anymore.
Report this comment
Unix
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:09pmthis guy must be a fruitloop, the gun grab is coming, bits and pieces at a time, may the frog boil slowly! Or the occupier of the WH will do an EO, then it’s game on! F’em all!
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:10pmexcept in the 2nd amendment “arms” must be clearly defined. because we technically already have massive infringement on our 2nd amendment rights, being as rocket launchers, machine guns, drones, nukes, war planes, etc etc etc etc etc are all illegal! Technically a ban on assault riffles would be no different. your right to bear arms is not infringed any more than it already has. you can still bear arms. just not those arms..
Report this comment
VVHITETEAPARTY
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:10pm@keatonc33, How ignorant are you? Well “regulated”, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, meant well TRAINED. Research. Go back and read the contemporaneous writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers and others responsible for the wording of 2nd Amendment rights, and similar rights in state constitutions, and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment becomes even MORE clear than it is already (to those that value our individual freedoms and don’t have an UN-American agenda). The right of the PEOPLE (we citizens) to keep (acquire and own) and bear (carry for defense of self, family, community, and country – specifically to defend against a tyrannical U.S. government if need be) arms (at the time, the same arms that any standing army might have – muskets then, and AT LEAST, military style firearms with the STANDARD, NOT “high” capacity magazines most of them were designed to use from DAY ONE of manufacture).
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:14pmWoodnut you said “A regulated militia in colonial times did not refer to regulations or rules of gun ownership placed on its’ members.” also in colonial times an “arm” was a musket! if we want to go back to strict colonial definitions I say muskets for everyone!
Report this comment
turkey13
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:15pm“The constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.” —– Danial Webster
Report this comment
Lee_in_PA
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:17pmShall not be infringed. What is so hard to understand about those four words?
Report this comment
Thomas
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:18pmThank God for the NRA.
Report this comment
No Grass
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:24pm@keatonc33. Assuming that you are part of the liberal base that doesn’t agree with conservatives or constitutionalists, the question is:
What do you want for the U.S.A.?…
Politically?
Socially?
Economically?
Personally?
Further, you are wrong about much of your listed weaponry being illegal. You just have to have a different license and vetting process to get them
Report this comment
Ed in North Texas
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:25pmKeaton33 – The term “well regulated”, as used in the 2d Amendment, did not mean controlled by regulations. In late 1700 terms, it meant a properly functioning militia, or clock, or whatever. In fact, in the US Government of the early 1800s to 1900 regulations, as we know them, didn’t exist. But don’t take my word for it, check it out yourself. Here’s a few links to get you started:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118×158517
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:29pmGUITAR MASTER Of course you’re correct because every gun law passed since the second amendment is unconstitutional. Collectivists like Barry will always try and say we don’t have a right to bear arms and other idiotic collectivists will nod their empty heads in agreement.
Report this comment
paprtowl
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:42pmand all auto pen signed legislation .
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:42pmVWWHITETEAPARTY you said “@keatonc33, How ignorant are you? Well “regulated”, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, meant well TRAINED” At the time the bill of rights were written arms meant muskets. If we want to use colonial definitions for the 2nd amendment I am all for people owning muskets! and only muskets. but you can’t use colonial definitions for things that help your argument while ignoring colonial definitions that hurt your argument.. thats just ridiculous!
Report this comment
TSUNAMI_22
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:50pmKeatonc33
A well REGULATED militia…. yes you oppose gun REGULATIONS?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘Regulation’ could have also meant that the government should supply all its citizens a weapon.
The door swings both ways. Try to be open-minded.
Report this comment
TSUNAMI_22
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:52pmright-wing-waco
“Regulated” in this Amendment means “trained” & “organized”. The only regulations we need is to keep guns from felons and crazies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You said it better than I did.
Report this comment
jeffersonian1776
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:08pmKeaton, once again you sound off on something you know nothing about. To say that the govt can “well-regulate” guns because the Constitution says the term “well-regulated” would be to absolutely change the definition of “regulate” from what it meant in the late 18th century.
It also says “SHALL” (not ‘shouldn’t') be infringed upon. So that would be an oxymoron in your mind–guaranteeing our right to defend ourselves against a despotic govt-turned-tyrannic govt and at the same time giving said despotic govt-turned-tyrannic govt the right to take away the defensive weapons for which it was not to infringe upon in the first place. Don’t you think our founders were a little bit smarter than that, than to contradict themselves in the same sentence. Lookup what the term well-regulated meant at the time the 2nd Amend. was written.
But look at it this way, the 2nd Amend. can be changed and gotten rid of all together, it’s called the amendment process, it’s absolutely the most democratic way to handle it, not only the only legal way to begin with. Besides, you guys are always screaming “democracy,” so I’m sure you’d love it. It involves getting the state gubmints involved and then every district in those states, each state would get only one single vote according to how how the districts wanted them to vote, then it takes 2/3rds of all states (34 states). Considering most districts outside of the blue metro areas are pro 2nd, there is no chance in hell to change i
Report this comment
Rickfromillinois
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:11pmIn 2012 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment means that lawful citizens have the right to own firearms for their protection and as a check on Government tyranny. The whole “militia” thing that the gun control fanatics want to define and focus on is a red herring. Let me be more specific, they are wrong.
Report this comment
Crazy Times
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:15pm2nd Amendment:
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 left’s interpretation:
A feel-good policy of community organizers that should start a community watch in their respective area, and allowing people to keep their limbs will not go away.
Report this comment
oldguy49
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:22pmbanning guns has worked out so well for chicago……….i will never invade the us because there will be a gun behind every blade of grass.{admiral yamamoto} we will also take names of anyone that votes for such a ban{real american}
Report this comment
Seawolf
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:25pmI’m seeing Liberals throwing around these 4 words out of context a lot lately “A well regulated Militia”, but funny how they leave off the break in the sentence with a comma then the words “The RIGHT of the PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” If you want to make it difficult for criminals to get guns then enforce the hundreds of State and Federal laws we already have on the books. Lying and labeling AR15 Semi Automatic rifles as Assault Rifles then claiming that banning them will somehow make people safer when every static available shows it will not because the majority of firearm deaths are caused by handguns with less than 10 rounds of ammunition. So basically every twisted argument the left has is a lie and easily debunked, but since telling a lie so much until simple minded people believe it has worked in the past why not try it again with gun control?
Simple fact is the Communist left in this country will not get our guns no matter how hard they try. If they keep pushing they will most likely end up losing the House again in 2016 and lose the Senate just like 1996. Their dear leader Obama will be left with a lame duck Presidency unable to pass legislation on school lunches much less anymore Communist Manifests. So I say go for it Libs, knock yourself out and go for that gun ban and watch power slip from your grasp just like in 1996.
Report this comment
BobtheMoron
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:25pmThe Constitution does not specify who can or cannot own a gun. Any law state or federal that limits the ownership and or possession of a firearm is illegal. In a strict reading of the Constitution there is no ability for any government entity to forbid the open carry of a firearm by anyone. While I agree that violent criminals and the insane should not be allowed to own and/or carry a firearm, there is no constitutional authority to keep them from owning or carrying weapons. I think that the framers of the Constitution assumed that violent criminals would be dead and that the insane would be constrained in some manner and that nonviolent criminals would be unaffected beyond the period of incarceration.
Report this comment
jeffersonian1776
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:28pmKeaton, also there pal, the amendment process (Article V), prevents types like yourself (in the minority here) from running roughshod over the individual rights of the majority, “tyranny by minorty.” Plus it is the only legal alternative for you despots, but hey the Constitution is only a piece of paper that cannot physically protect our natural-born rights, and since we are country no longer ruled by law and instead have become a nation ruled by men by decree, I suppose any despotic and tyrannic actions this new dictatorship takes, as long as it punishes thou political enemies, you are totally fine with. I can see glee in the hearts of many socialists and progressives anytime a tragedy occurs,thinking yeah this is the one, this is finally the one we can use to punish our political enemies. I used tobe one of those who believed much of what the left was indoctrinating me with, until I educated myself in the philosophy of freedom and economics.
Report this comment
CafeConservative
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:29pm“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason
Report this comment
Berbel73
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:35pmKeatonC33 is playing the same old progressive word game trying to redefine what the founders intent was. If the founders had meant to say “muskets” then they would have used the word, but they didn’t. They used the word “arms” which meant any means of self protection be it muskets, hand guns, swords, knives, etc. They knew very well that an “unarmed” populace were nothing more than subjects and not free men. Sorry KeatonC33 but we know your progressive playbook and we aren’t going to fall for your tricks.
Report this comment
henryKnox
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:46pmFunny, I don’t see anything about gun regulations in the phrase ‘well regulated militia’. I guess it could have said ‘a militia whose guns are regulated by the central authority’. However, I really doubt that would have accomplished the desired result. The gov’t works for us and I think we should be able to obtain any weapons that they would use against us. Yes, the militia should have access to tanks and rocket launchers, another name for the militia may be national guard when it was unconstitutional for the feds to interfere with each states national guard. That only happened during WWII and the practice should be ended.
Report this comment
mercenary4freedom
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:58pmBANJARMON, 000DEGREES, Amen & Semper Fi! Hell hath no fury as a pissed off & pissed on patriot betrayed by their own govt.
Report this comment
BikerHoop
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 5:26pm@Keatonc33,
The word ‘regulated’ in the 2nd Amendment meant ‘trained’, not regulations.
Report this comment
rangerskippy
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 5:37pmKeatonc33
Take a look at the Civilian Marksmanship Program, then come back and tell me that we are not well regulated.
every year, the top shooters in the nations make the trek to Camp Perry, Ohio, and the top civilian shooters are right there, using military rifles (like the AR15), competing shoulder to shoulder with active duty and reserve forces military.
Teddy Roosevelt put the CMP in place, so civilians could be “well regulated”
You would also be proud to know, that in my neighborhood, I am doing well at “regulating” those around me. I hold IDPA style pistol matches in my back yard, along with teaching classes on gun safety, reloading, marksmanship, with pistol, and also teach long range tactical shooting. We have a farm down the road, where my neighbors are now reading wind and adjusting for it’s effects, ranging targets with a reticle, and engaging steel targets as far as 800 yards away.
We are “well regulated”, and will continue to keep and bear our arms with a high degree of safety and lethality.
I am sure the Founding Fathers would be proud of me. I am also sure they would vomit to know what Obama is all about.
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 5:49pmSo again can someone please explain to me why its ok to use the colonial definition of “regulated” but not the colonial definition of “arms”? anyone? anyone?
Report this comment
Techcon
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 6:14pmClip…magazine…have we’ve lost this one to lazy guntards and Hollywood know nothings?
If it’s got a SPRING, it’s a MAGAZINE. Okay?
For you lazy guntards, it’s “mag” for short.
Report this comment
muffythetuffy
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 6:32pmTHE GOP IS READY TO PASS ANYTHING OBAMA WANTS NOW
The Democrats already have the secret approval of the majority of the disgraced despicable Roberts Supreme Court so its just a matter of stretching out the publicity to show the GOP tried.
Report this comment
Techcon
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 6:34pm@KEATONC33
What words are protected by the 1st Amendment? Why, those the government seeks to ban, of course.
And the 2nd Amendment?
Same EXACT concept.
As for grenade launchers and nukes, you fail completely to grasp the difference between offensive and defensive arms.
If you’re looking for an easy to understand arms standard, here it is:
If ANY fed or state civilian law enforcement agency has arm “X” then you, or I, can keep and bear arm “X,” too.
If you don’t want the PEOPLE to keep and bear AR-15s, then disarm ALL civilian law enforcement agencies of this weapon type FIRST.
Based on this standard, we SHOULD be able to own an auto sear lower, since the cops posses selective fire weapons…for some reason.
Report this comment
king1
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 6:39pmI will stash my guns and then tell berry to lock me up and we’ll settle this in court
Report this comment
BlueStrat
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 6:42pmHow about asking gun owners to each mail the WH a single round of ammo, with a short note that reads;
“Mr. President,
Here’s the first bullet.
If you continue to assault 2nd Amendment Rights, we’ll send the rest “Air Mail”.
Report this comment
NeoFan
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 6:54pmWhat does it say about a man that has attained the most powerful office in the world that he desperately seeks even greater power of the most law abiding citizens under his control? During the entire Sandy Hook saga not one word has been said about greater restrictions, controls, or a loss of rights for those found guilty of such acts. So now its time to punish and remove the rights of the law abiding. Punish the good for the actions of the bad. Only evil would promote such darkness and call it light. You can imprison beat and torture the citizens that follow the law and it will have no effect on those that do not respect the law. They will laugh and mock. Mexico has the strictest gun laws on the continent and yet rogue bureaucrats from the country to the north sent thousands of weapons into their Utopia which led to hundreds of their citizens being murdered. Stop punishing the lawful for the acts of the lawless.
Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 6:57pmKeaton is a troll; do not engage a useless troll in a civil discussion.
Report this comment
mixplix
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 7:18pmI like your post, nuff said.
Report this comment
MetalPatriot
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 7:28pmCafeconservative had the best response and you all missed it.
Report this comment
valiant1776
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 8:00pm@keaton You’re one freaking leftist idiot. The word “arms” in colonial times never meant “muskets”.
(1828 Definitions)
ARMS, n. plu. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
REGULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
MILITIA, n. The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.
DISCIPLINE, n. [L., to learn.] Education; Instruction and government, comprehending the communication of knowledge and the regulation of practice; as military discipline, which includes instruction in manual exercise, evolutions and subordination.
A “well regulated militia” meant a well trained, disciplined, organized and equipped militia.
Report this comment
valiant1776
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 8:11pmThe Constitution says what the federal Government may do in regards to militias.
Congress, not the President, may “call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
Congress, not the President, may provide for “organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
(1828 Definitions)
TRAINING, ppr. Drawing; alluring; educating; teaching and forming by practice.
ORGANIZED, pp. To distribute into suitable parts and appoint proper officers, that the whole may act as one body; reducing to system in order to produce united action to one end.
The President may command “the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
The President may not regulate anything regarding the Militia! The President may not even command the Militia if its not in “actual Service”. The President may not usurp the powers of Congress!
Report this comment
valiant1776
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 8:20pm10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
- End of Code
The President has no Constitutional power to govern, train, organize, equip, discipline, regulate, or arm the Militia of the Several States. The President may militarily command the Militia of the several States only when they are called forth by Congress and are in actual Service to the US. And only Congress may govern (regulate) such Part of them as may be employed in the actual Service of the United States. Any other powers are reserved to the several States. And any powers allowed to Congress regarding the Militia are reserved to the States if and when the Militia is not in actual Service to the US.
Report this comment
remington1911
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 9:11pmthe second amendment doesnt give us the right to bear arms. We have the right to bear arms because as americans we are FREE MEN this is the difference between us and the rest of the world. the constitution and the 2nd amendment only limits the government’s ability to control our lives by overpowering us with force(the military we pay for).
Report this comment
rickroland
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 9:18pm@Keatonc33 — Supreme court rulings, citing that it is a *personal* right, not depending on being part of a “… well regulated militia…” at all. Please do some research before you spout off with nonsense.
Oh, and while you are at it, check the words of our Founding Fathers on the subject of the right to keep and bear arms and the resultant 2nd Amendment, you owe it to yourself and your fellow citizens to be educated on the matter.
Report this comment
OIF3survivor
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 9:24pmKeaton33, as well as Sendthemeteors and the half-wit known as Encinom:
How simpleminded and devoid of critical thinking/reading comprehension skill can you display in each post. Its nearly breathtaking to read the lack of thinking that occurs in each of your posts.
You wrote “So again can someone please explain to me why its ok to use the colonial definition of “regulated” but not the colonial definition of “arms”? anyone? anyone?”
There needs be no use of the ‘colonial’ (it was actually post-colonial there genius)definition of arms precisely for the same reason that the founders left the amendment written to include arms, and not muskets, swords, or knives. The term was written to be inclusive of all weapons which could be used by the militia man (light infantry) and in no way limited by any current technology. In the ‘colonial’ period you indicate as the basis for the 2nd Amendment, technology had gone from the highly unreliable matchlock to flintlock muskets(smooth bore and good for little more than massed volley fire preferred by the British as it limited training needs) to rifled muzzle loaders increasingly by the end of the war for Independence. So the founders were most certainly aware that technology did not stand still. In any case, the amendment certainly does not include machine guns and bazookas(as your ilk continuously tries to imply as an extension of ‘arms’) but rather the above mentioned light infantry type weapons.
Report this comment
Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 9:37pmObama is doing what he’s been assigned to do. Destroy what’s left of the USA, divide the people, and get them under martial law. Did anyone miss that he signed a bill giving ex-presidents lifetime protection? He knows.
Report this comment
mrunner
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 9:53pmTo all of you trying to argue with Keaton- a wise man once said- “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.”
Report this comment
yarply
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 10:15pmgermans prior to ww2 had the right to have guns also. It did not stop the n azis from rounding them up and killing all the nationalist, and then the jews, gypsies,christians and everyone and anyone who disagreed with their “program”. Just cause it says it on paper doesn’t mean any thing. its only as good as the people are who are willing to back up the ideas and truths enshrined in the words life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Report this comment
destrecht
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:06pmthe well regulated militia and the right of the people are not the same thing, any more than the right to free speech and religion are the same thing. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed- The first is national, the second if personal, although the point is for a FREE STATE. If all they are talking about is the military, then it doesn’t make any sense. If only the military is armed, it isn’t a free state, but a police state.
Report this comment
PDX Entrepreneur
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:45pmIt says a well regulated Militia, not well regulated arms.
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”
–Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”
–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).”
–Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
–Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
Report this comment
SendTheMeteors
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:48pmOIF3survivor, sorry for being “simpleminded and devoid of critical thinking/reading comprehension skills.” I can’t help it. But thanks for pointing that out anyway. I sure wish I weren’t devoid of critical thinking/reading comprehension skills as you are!
I think you’re saying that the 2nd Amendment is to meant to include only “light infantry” weapons of the kind that a well regulated army needed at the time the Constitution was drafted, and was meant to include the modern equivalent, whatever that might be or become. But you’re also saying there are restrictions on the rights of citizens to have “arms” beyond those would reasonably be held by “light infantry.”
Yours is one of the better posts I’ve read on this issue. But I have a few questions. Does the Government have the right to have “machine guns and bazookas” but American citizens do not? Does the American government have the right to own weapons so powerful they could suppress any uprising of a group or state within the country? And can deny American citizens those same weapons? You’re breaking with your 2nd Amendment friends if that’s your view.
Isn’t the 2nd Amendment designed, as many say, to prevent the tyranny of government? If that’s true, how can you believe that Americans can only legally possess “light infantry” weapons, when those would be so easily overcome by the Government.
“Light infantry” weapons are used to kill a lot of people quickly. That’s proven.
Report this comment
valiant1776
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:37am@Meteors You have created a false premises, and asserted questions on pure ignorance. “Arms” does not include whatever weapon the mind can conceive. And “Militia” does not mean an actual military force. “Arms” means what the dictionary says it means:
(1828 dictionary)
ARMS, n. plu. Weapons of offense or armor for defense and protection of the body.
Did you read that? It said for “the body”. You don’t need a submarine to protect your body. And you sure as hell don’t need a nuke to protect your body. The Amendment uses the word “arms” for a reason. The word itself is limiting in nature. I can’t bear a cannon down the street to protect my body. What you keep referring to in your foolish questions and ridiculous assertions is to “artillery”, not “arms”. In other words, you’re ignorantly pulling at straws here.
ARTILLERY, n. In a general sense, offensive weapons of war. Canon; great guns; including guns, mortars and grenades, with their furniture of carriages, balls, bombs and shot of all kinds. In a more extended sense, the word includes powder, cartridges, matches, utensils, machines of all kinds, and horses that belong to a train of artillery. The men who manage cannon and mortars, including matrosses, gunners, bombardiers, cannoniers, or by whatever name they are called, with the officers, engineers and persons who supply the artillery with implements and materials.
Read a dictionary of that time before you make absurd claims.
Report this comment
Trigus
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 2:45amCalifornia, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York have no provision in their State Constitution for: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state.
If you live in one of these States you are screwed. Cut and dry for the rest of us.
Remind your elected Officials of their Oath and the State Constitution that defines how your State regards the 2nd Amendment: 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.
Report this comment
naughtycal
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 8:36amExactly
A move by the president on our second amendment will result in an impeachment and if Congress refuses to act on behalf of the Constitution and impeach a president who is attacking the very article he swore an oath to protect.
Report this comment
kadster01
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 8:46amInteresting quotes from the man who would become president, twice, and Eric Holder.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-12-22-2414012588_x.htm
“That 1996 questionnaire asked whether he (Obama) supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. The campaign’s answer was straightforward: ‘Yes.’ Eight years later, he said on another questionnaire that ‘a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable’ but reasonable restrictions should be imposed.”
Now, of course as he became more high profile he decided to start speaking out of both sides of his mouth, like all politicians. But one must wonder which sentiment is closer to the truth, and if the more recent one is just a means to achieve the former.
Eric – Fast and Furious – Holder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWhRAccEuE
“We must brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
Granted, thugs and gangstas could use some “reeducation,” but do the majority of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens require brainwashing to understand guns? Really?
Report this comment
Trigus
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 8:51amToss Treason out the window here: Throw in Perjury, Barry Obama can be charged with Perjury when he makes an Executive Order that goes against the Constitution and hinders our Bill of Rights.
18 USC § 1621 – Perjury generally
Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
Report this comment
ShadowEchelon
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 9:02am@Keaton – …the right of “THE PEOPLE” to keep and bear arms…. who are “THE PEOPLE”? You and I … not a so much a well regulate militia. 2 parts, It is necessary for a free state …the other hits on the rights of “THE PEOPLE”.
Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 9:20amK33
Knows the answer but is a good troll and useful idiot. Don’t respond unless you like the entertainment value.
Report this comment
Trigus
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 9:27amNow, Biden and the rest of his panel and any other elected Official, who has taken the OATH, can also be charged with conspiracy to commit perjury. When they suggest a executive order is needed to bypass Congress and every eligible voter of the United States that infringes on our constitutional rights. Then they can be charged with conspiracy to commit perjury. The President can be charged with Perjury by signing the unlawful executive order.
Thus, any law enforcement official who fails to arrest them is in direct violation of the OATH. Any law enforcement official who attempts to carry out an unlawful executive order is in direct violation of the OATH.
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
5 U.S.C. §3331
Report this comment
right field
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:39amGuitar Master – You are so very wrong. The Supreme Court can rule in a number of ways to defeat the intent of the Constitution. Judge Roberts’ opinion and the recent “unconstitutional-constitutional” ruling on Obama-Tax-Care is evidence enough to understand that our government is no stronger than the people who are entrusted to follow our laws. The Constitution has been so badly abused by activist judges that this court will easily “construct” a new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to be whatever the Marxist want with a 5 to 4 vote. Eventually, the Democrats will have all 9 of the Supreme Court Justices and all but a few of the Federal Circuit Court Judges who will uphold whatever is politically in their best interest. The MSM will assist with every detail to obtain complete control of the government as long as the Marxist do what the MSM approves. The voters will go along – the majority does not care about the facts or the loss of personal freedom – until there are no more entitlements & “freebies.”
Report this comment
sp1223c
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:32pmI am seeking members to join my MD State Militia.. You must be a legal citizen, able to own a firearm and Pledge to protect the Constitution of the United States of America.
Report this comment
rickinpa
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:35pmK33 – As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
“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”
So you want to concentrate on REGULATED MILITIA but feel free to eliminate the reference to FREE STATE ( no federal business being involved) and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Hmmm we can all play word games only one of us is being honest about what the founding father’s true intent and it’s not YOU!
Report this comment
shakedowncrews
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:41pmKeatonCC, sir, do you know what the meaning of “reguated” was in the 18th century? It meant “provisioned”, or supplied. In other words, it was important for the “militia” (the peoplewere the militia) to be “well provisoned”, or “well armed”.
To be blunt, they were saying that thepeople should have the arms of the day. They didn’t intend for the people to be allowed to keep rakes and hoes or daggers!
Report this comment
deeberj
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:21pmbut other things that he’s signed that are illegal – are they law now? Are we having to do them? Obamacare?
And maybe he’ll just do an executive order? He’s done that a few times for things he could not get through congress.
Report this comment
1oldmarine
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 5:41pmLegal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes.
There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying the “right to keep and bear arms”. This is a brief outline for a clarification of the discussion of this issue. Read this:
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
Report this comment
Speak without Fear
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:26pmKeaton better do some actual research rather than spitting out liberal talking points. George Mason on the meaning of militia: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” Now for a competing view: ”Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
~Heinrich Himmler I pick door No. !
Report this comment
Speak without Fear
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:34pmSince you want to look at the founding fathers, let’s look at this quote: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
~ George Washington ~
Report this comment
alogolf2008
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:46amIt is time for all of the politicians who have broken their oaths to protect the Constitution of the US to get out of office-and leave this country!! Once any politician becomes an oath breaker they have become any enemy of “We the People”. I know many Americans see what these politicians have become and this reality cannot be denied. They have removed themselves so far from our foundational concept of Freedom, that they cannot even be called “Americans” any longer. They are, in plain speaking language, Anti-Americans!!
Now we must somehow manage to prepare a well-orchestrated gathering in Washington D.C. to demand that they be told to resign-and Obama should be first on the resignation list! Many communist countries, where people are disarmed and managed by politicians just like them, will be waiting for them, saying: “Welcome home to your Family”.
Also, all the States that have politicians on the side of “We The People” and our Constitution, should enact laws that override any coming gun laws from the anti-freedom politicians in Washington-as these laws violate most of all state constitutions.
Liberty can be saved if we all stand together in a united force against these corrupt politicians.
Report this comment
frogg
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:21pmI personaly will vote against any member of Congress that votes for any type of Gun Control Bill! I will not care about his/her record on any other issues!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope that every one will promise to do the same! These people will do any thing to take our freedoms away and the only check we have are our Guns!!!!!!!
Report this comment
betsyyoung
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:28pmYou got my vote Frogg!!!!
Report this comment
AmericaMustBeFree
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:35pmI think they had all better worry if they pass anything on the 2nd Amendment. What they need to do is reopen the mental institutions they closed down!
Report this comment
truthnstuff
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:00pmExactly frogg. If we can’t trust them on this we can’t trust them on anything.
Report this comment
1TrueOne55
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 7:05pmThat’s easy to say but what happens when the one you vote for turns coat and votes to take your rights away after being elected.
Report this comment
cowgirl
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:21pmhow many think that it was just a little too convenient that this shooting happened on the heels of his re-election? i mean how many fifty -something house wives in a northern state (eastern) have those types of weapons? let alone can pick some of the best ones out there and practice with a nine pound ar-15? ever shoot one let alone hold it up for more than a minute? get my point. i live in the south (big hunting state and i don’t know too many guys that have these weapons (bet more have them now). and where are the people that know her? or shoot with her? how many of you could carry on a conversation with a woman about these guns? anybody? doesn’t pass the smell test
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:27pm@COWGIRL
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:21pm
how many think that it was just a little too convenient that this shooting happened on the heels of his re-election?
——————————————-
Do not underestimate the moral depravity of a communist PROG
Report this comment
betsyyoung
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:29pmAmen!
Report this comment
xpilotah1s
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:31pmNothing this Aministration or the progressive agendists pass the smell test, It looks more like Atlas Shrugged more and more.
Report this comment
scott4freedom
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:49pmI am not one to follow conspiricy theroies, however I like many others I have talked with seem to come to the same conculsions…It stinks, the facts are few and far reaching, I wouldn’t be suprised if these people were linked to power outside what we have told .
Report this comment
P4cooler
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:20pmIf the politicians want to stop something they should stop spending. The honest law abiding citizens with firearms is a non-issue and the number one culprit on violence is big pharmaceutical and anti-depressant drugs. Reporters who made reports exposing the dangerous drugs Big Pharma puts out have been fired. One person who pointed the blame at Big Pharma recently was killed in a mysterious accident. http://www.naturalnews.com/038616_John_Noveske_mysterious_death_car_crash.html Politicians love the campaign donations so they protect their money machine from Big Pharma. Assault weapons are not a problem. What is creating these mass killings is the politicians who provide cover for the pharmaceutical industry.
Report this comment
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:15pmIf the President is putting us in danger by taking away our rights and allowing the criminals to run free whether with drugs, or illegal people crossing the borders, not taking responsibility for his errors and his administrations errors, wasting tax payers money (count the ways) then telling congress to raise the debt limit then he is not doing his job. His main job is to keep us safe and not to do what he feels is right, break the budget and to heck with law and order. God is watching over all of us and I hope all are proud of what He sees,
Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:21pmJust look at what the puppet master say’s to see what obama might do..http://weaselzippers.us/2013/01/13/george-soros-group-calls-for-13-new-anti-gun-laws/
Report this comment
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:43pmCivil….I wish Soros was civil but he can not say or do anything but try to ruin Countries. God is watching over us. He (God) gave us free will and I rather be on God’s side then Soro’s any day. God Bless America.
Report this comment
GONE_SOVEREIGN
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:08pm@Civil: Soros/NObama doesn’t have a war against criminal’s, because they are. Their war is on law abiding people.
Report this comment
mercenary4freedom
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:23pmCIVILWAR….Soros needs to have a date with a heart attack!
Report this comment
GONE_SOVEREIGN
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:07pmIt looks like Harry Reid was so determined to get NObamacare passed that he put in senate amendment protecting the right to keep and bare arms.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/Backfire-Obamacare-Forbids-Gun-and-Ammo-Registration
Report this comment
pakaeboiboi
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:06pmDear Precious Leader Barrak, SLAVES DON’T NEED GUNS …. disarm your SLAVES before it’s too late …..
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:37pmand yet again i have to say.. NO ONE is trying to disarm you!
Report this comment
grimmster
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:02pmGo ahead, ban them, then wait and see what kind of defecated feces hits the rotating occulator. obama,piglosi and the rest of the commies supported the ows “revolution”,lets see if they support a real revolution,to throw out the criminal commies in DC………
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:25pmGRIMM: Yes. The Chicago radicals supported the OWS revolution because it is an international anti-capitalist group. Tells you all you need to know about our Obama Chicago radicals ! Just ask Bill Ayers who used to blow up banks, but now focuses on the American capitalist economy instead..
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:32pmMore love, tolerance, and total objectivity from ENCINOM.
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:44pmEAST: love the “tea baggers/ Beckerheads…I heard more mature commentary in junior high school locker rooms..
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:51pmlol BARB…
no doubt. I think he uses the term “*********” so often because that’s his official designation in his all-male S&M club.
Report this comment
elkslayer
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:57pmBefore the election I bought a 9 for my wife and a 40 for me. Just before Christmas my son bought an ar 15. The price on each weapon has gone up 100 dollars since. The gun shops now have none to sell and a waiting list. All my weapons are registered. If I traded with someone straight across would that be beneficial to me?
Report this comment
DirtyHarry7
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:09pmElk, they went up more than $100, especially your AR. It doubled in value just after Newtown, and should now still be at least a few hundred higher than you paid.
Guns and ammo are a great investment. Seldom will you lose money if you do a little due diligence.
Report this comment
elkslayer
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:50pmThanks dirtyharry I am stocking up on gun powder, primers, and bullets. I don’t have a reloader but most of my friends do.. That will be my next investment. A 550B
Report this comment
TheEDGE
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 9:18pmI attended the Roads of the West gun show at the Cow Palace in San Francisco and it was jam packed, wall to wall. 10 round Ruger 10/22 mags were $25. Glock 17 mags for as much as $100! The line for ammo stretched all the way to Geneva Avenue. This was on a day that the Forty Niners played the Packers in a huge playoff game. I should also note that it was the most polite event I’ve attended in San Fran since the last gun show.
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:56pmAnyone else being made to sign in numerous times…for the third day in a row ? What gives ?
Report this comment
Random_American
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:05pmYou might not have clicked on “Remeber this” thing. Otherwise it is because you may be logging out inadvertantly.
Report this comment
Mil-Dot
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:09pmBarber,
Yes, yesterday it was a nightmare. The Blaze needs to hire some real IT folks. Not Huffpo rejects. Today mine seems to be working OK.
Report this comment
Tigress1
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:17pmIt’s happening to me too. I never click the “Remember me” thingy, but it normally doesn’t throw me off after each post. It’s very annoying, but look at it as an exercise in persistence! :)
Report this comment
Mil-Dot
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:18pmBarber,
I take that back. It is still messed up. I can see a server being corrupted for say maybe 24 hours, but 3 days? That is ridiculous. There are many thousands of out of work experts that could easily find the problem and fix it. This is what you get when you hire your friends or go by quotas instead of getting people that can do the job.
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:50pmThanks. I am still having a problem when I tried to comment on the newest story on Powell. Is this some punk Troll cyber deal ? Like the ACORN bullhorns ? Kniow the Chicago radicals hate Beck like they hated Breitbart .
Report this comment
Glenn in Virginia
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:36pmI’ve had that problem for several days. It’s beginning to get irritating.
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:51pm“When Black people wanted to carry guns in the 60s to protect themselves against police. The NRA fully support Ronald Reagan signing the 1967 Mulford act that restricted people carrying guns”
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:08pmThe 60s ? That was when the Black Panthers and the Black Muslims were “hating Whitey and the pigs /cops , ” and were sowing discord. Oh, and Bill Ayers, our Chicago radical, was blowing up banks and trying to kill cops. Ah, interesting that you should mention the 60s. Today is like the 60s on steroids and they are now in the White House.
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:29pmBarber.. i can get into the literally thousands and thousands of instances where blacks were abused, oppressed and murdered by police in the 60s but ill skip to the more direct point. the NRA and Ronald Reagan both supported and signed into law legislature that infringed on gun rights!
Report this comment
Rosemary Woodhouse
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:36pmENCINOM- you are so bloody predictable, tedious and boring. Don’t you know by now that everyone just scrolls by your posts because they are invariable contrary to what everyone on this site believes? In short, my dear, you are a joke!
Report this comment
Ziggy
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:08pmRose,
I think KEATONC33 is just as predictable, tedious and boring.
Report this comment
Walkabout
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:40pmWe can go with KeatonC33
or
We can go with Horowtiz’s Book “Radical Son” from someone who was there, was part of the New Left on the West coast in California.
__________________________________________________________________________________
New Left = i.e. we do not have to apologize for the last Left, The Old Left, who hung onto Uncle Joe Stalins’ every word. That is Horowitz’s parents & the few million like them.
Report this comment
hpyagl
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:47pmThe millions of aborted babies don’t get tiny caskets. They just get tossed in the incinerator. Why is this different than German concentration camps ENCINOM?. Where is your argument against State sanctioned murder? Are you a hypocrite?
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 3:07pmHYPAGL… i dont know how we got on the subject of abortion.. but here we go. for years scientists have debated what exactly makes us human, separates us from the animals, is it consciousness of the world around us? Higher levels of communication? The ability to look into the future? to surpass basic survival instincts? the ability to invent? etc etc…. now which of these does a zygote possess?
Report this comment
hpyagl
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 5:24pmThat’s funny. It’s the same argument the Nazis used against the Jews. “They are not human, so….”. It’s too bad that you have delusional thinking and think that throwing fetuses in an incinerator is ok. It just shows how far you have sunk.
Also in regard to your “well regulated militia” is concerned, I consider myself well regulated. I keep my arms in order and have been trained on their use. I am as regulated as my ancestors were in regard to their actions against the British Monarchy. Should they have let the British regulate them? You can throw your stupid arguments all day long and you are not going to convince these “fat tea baggers” to change their views. When you are called names by the left over and over again, do you really think you are doing damage? We are a tougher skin than you yellow belly, pampered school boys.You are just making fools of yourselves.
You think it’s cool to be an anarchist, or stand in the street and scream at the police, or demand something for nothing, but you have contempt for those that don’t buy into you socialist BS and you do every thing you can to drown out the exercise of free speech of those that don’t believe what you believe. So just keep on patting yourself on the back and reassuring yourself that you are of supreme intelligence and don’t forget to throw another baby on the fire to keep yourself warm.
Report this comment
hpyagl
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 5:33pmBTW: We got onto the subject of abortion because I brought it up. Man! You really are stupid, aren’t you! That’s how dialogue gets started, idiot.
You don’t want to accept that abortion is murder, so you try to deflect the subject to cover you guilt. I think it’s very relevant in regard to the stupid “tiny casket” comment by your lover ENCINOM.
Report this comment
encinom
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 5:40pmWhats bloody predictable, tedious and boring is the knee jerk reaction of the mindless tea baggers. Talk rational gun laws and they are on TV shouting about Hitler, Stalin and 1776. No one is proposing a gun ban, Beck, Jones and the NRA are lying to their puppets to keep them in line.
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 5:48pmI was asking why we got on the topic of abortion in a gun rights debate.. idiot. but idiot i suppose when your know little about anything else try to swing the subject to something your at least a little educated in.. by the way i feel its time to start an evolution debate.. because thats seems just as poignant!
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 5:58pmhaha encinom! so true! “we think there should be mandatory background checks on all gun purchases”….. HITLER!!!
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 6:02pmalso hypagal. can I safely assume that your are avidly opposed to hunting? you know being as every animal on earth has a higher intellegence and more brain activity, and are far less dependent than an embryo? or if we want to go the potential for life route, i can only guess you are an avid proponent of the death penalty being as all murderers have the potential to become decent citizens.
Report this comment
jeffersonian1776
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 8:58pmTo Keaton or Encemen, tell us how a “rational” registering of firearms in a federal database is supposed to make us a more civil and safer society? Please enlighten us on how we will all be safer, if that is what you call “rational gun laws.” Aside from making it easier for those making and enforcing the law to see who has a gun, or not, there is nothing at all from which that would make us a freer, and sure the hell not safer. The fact is and yall know it, registration has always lead to confiscation throughout history. That may seem “rational” to you, because then yall could tie the registration to our driver’s licenses and then use it discriminate against us in many ways as liable dangers to society as a whole. You leftist iron fisted use the power of the state to plunder law abiding citizens liberties and properties, have already begun to target us politically and personally when we’ve broken no law and want to be left alone and not punished for the actions of another. Just wait maybe your wetdreams will come true and you will have all of us criminalized with the shake of pen when they pass some despotic law they have no authority to do. If they want it changed legally then their, your, only option is to kick it out to 34 states to repeal 2nd amendment and Obama the constitutional teacher that he was knows it very well, but he also knows it would go nowhere fast, but you guys don’t care about the law, just as long as he does it, even without Congress.
Report this comment
CloudNine
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 10:51pmWhat predictable is this diatribe:
@ Encinom –
Enema (aka Encinom) is offering “it’s” wisdom on the topic for today! I am always amazed at how your comments reflect such little intellectual capacity. Is it hard to breathe with your head up your “arse”? For those of you unfamiliar with this quack, ignore “it”. There’s never a relevant thought, comment or statement from Encinom’s input! Hey “Enema”, you still have that Rod Serling “Fathead” on your wall?
Report this comment
Uechi
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:49pmHey Blaze if you are going to report, the word is magazines not clips. See explanation: http://thegunzone.com/clips-mags.html
Report this comment
HeavyMetalRooster
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:44pmIf he acts without congressional approval, then he is acting without the consent of the governed. This is a clear violation of his oath to office and he must be charged accordingly.
Report this comment
dnewton
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:56pmMaybe he thinks he can keep guns off of the Interstate? Jimmy Carter did something similar to that by forbidding government employees the right to carry firearms on government property(in their cars) unless the gun was related to their employment. This messed up a lot of folks that were National Guardsmen and practiced for pistol competition.
Report this comment
taxpro4u03
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:12pmSounds plausible — and nearly 98% of the general population still believes that — time to reverse engineer ‘civics class’ to its roots and sort out the cognitive dissonace :-) —> downes v bidwell 182, u.s. 244 1901 — Also snag the Constitution of 1791 as amended THRU 1860 (State archives original facimiles are available showing the original 13th amendment Titles of Nobility Act) and place it along side the 2nd Organic Acts of 1871/74 post-reconstruction rag (facsimile corporate constitution) — pay particular CLOSE attention to the corp’s 14th amendment (dissect it — and run thru SCOTUS decisions stating all that was CREATED was a NEW ‘class’ of citizenship) — Verify the authenticity –
Report this comment
stopprintn
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:38pmThe libral commentator who was wanting to make demons of the manufacturers, should realy consitter putting a ban on spoons in her own household. The NRA has over 100,000 new members, and they are not all from S&W, or Mosburg. Mr. Keene did a very nice job and I feel my dues are well placed.
Report this comment
encinom
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:15pmYou mist rejoice at the fact that your organization rejoices in the site of tiny caskets. Nothing lie the NRA protecting the tools of death.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:39pmENCINOM…
Seems like you can’t write a single sentence without exaggerations and cliches.
Have you ever thought of writing headlines for the Blaze?
Report this comment
stopprintn
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:42pmI think you have the NRA mixed up with the MSM/Demoncrap party. But then you people mostly are a mixed up bunch.
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:35pmThe definition of an assault weapon needs to be defined better and not by LSDNC…
Report this comment
OlefromMN
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:39pmWhy? All weapons (including candle sticks) can become an “assault weapon”.
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:40pmMost folks do not understand that the term “semi-automatic” covers just about EVERYTHING
beyond the black powder era.
Obviously this is calculated.
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:43pmAnd “assault weapon” is the same sort of liberal BS as “hate crime”.
Report this comment
barber2
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:57pmBODY: Agree. Like there is a ” love ” crime ?!
Report this comment
DEFCON4
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:41pm@ Barber2, Don’t forget the “crimes-of-passion”…..
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:49pm@BARBER2
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:57pm
BODY: Agree. Like there is a ” love ” crime ?!
———————————————————–
Exactly.
We assaulted Iran using computer systems with the Susnex virus.
Are computers considered “assault weapons” ?
This is the DANGER. Words, their meaning, and their useage are IMPORTANT.
Lawyers [politicians] know and use this daily.
How would you like to send a heated email to someone and end up charged with
a federal crime of using an assault weapon [computer].
Thats how the law works — connecting the dots.
Report this comment
YOURSENSEI
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:42pmThis is what you must know:
“enhanced interrogation” . . . ah, conservative hypocrisy at its best . . . “Paging Mr Hannity, your waterboarding for charity is ready.”
It is so.
Report this comment
individualrights1st
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:34pmWhile my government is using our tax money to heavily arm citizens (and terrorists) in other countries so that they might be “free”, they are working furiously away to disarm their own citizens. Why?
Report this comment
Tigress1
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:41pmGreat question! They are hoping people don’t think too much about that. Maybe those terrorists who are rising up against their own government are simply hunting?
Report this comment
HeavyMetalRooster
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:11pmThat is a really great question! I think WE all know the answer, but it still should be answered in a public forum by the traitor in chief. I hope you don’t mind that I took the liberty of copying and pasting your question on my Facebook.
Report this comment
encinom
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:00pmTell me how have you been disarmed?
Just another paranoid tea ****** believing in conspiracy theories and the fear mongering of the merchants of death.
Report this comment
Walkabout
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:13pmencinom
Could not buy a 20 round clip. After the hypocritical Diane Feinstein bill sunsetted. I went out & bought one. Every city I go to has ****** neighborhoods (of all sorts of races). All they need is some rabble rouser to come in & set them afire. It was funny how I could get a job with less than one semester’s worth of coursework & make $ 30,000 year which put me in the middle class & yet the liberals tell us that the poor cannot do likewise. Instead of helping people get a plan, \& pull themselves up, they start riots.
In the near future I may not be able to buy an AR 15. You can hunt dear with them or target shoot. Plus they are good for self defense if we get riots that liberals like to instigate.
Report this comment
gongshow
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:34pmPlease sign my White House petition if you want to prevent the president from opening pandora’s box and using executive order to destroy our Constitution
http://wh.gov/PmKg
Report this comment
Diego Roswell
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:40pmThis president and administration could care less what “petitions” are filed. Even if every gun owner in america got off his lazy a s s and went to DC and stood before the gates of the WH and demanded that this administration stop the madness of dismantling the constitution, they would laugh it off. THEY DO NOT CARE what we think. They will do what ever they want regardless of the consequences. They have an agenda. Which is to grow the size and scope of the federal government, period.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:27pmIn other words..
It’s guaranteed to pass.
Report this comment
JohnnyinthePedros
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:31pmOn Jan. 11, I created a White House petition telling the President to not use Executive Orders to enact any gun control legislation, as it will result in an insurrection. It needs to get 150 signatures to become posted and searchable on their site, and as of this writing it needs 15 more. Please sign it and pass it on. Here’s the link – http://wh.gov/Pesj
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:38pmWhat is the NRA doing here….Reverse psychology? Why are they giving credibility to what Obama wants to do???
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:54pmHowdy SOY..
I think the NRA is looking at the recent boost in membership and seeing dollar signs.
Saying wacky BS panders to the the paranoid batch of new recruits, and advertises to potential neurotic members that they are among friends.
In other words.. encouraging, empowering, & legitimizing Obama’s rhetoric, while simultaneously being dismissive of it’s Constitutionality is good for business.
As Marilyn Manson so aptly said,
“We’re all stars now… in the dope show.”
Report this comment
hpyagl
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 2:29pmMarilyn Manson is a douche bag.
Report this comment
GONE_SOVEREIGN
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:20pmOn Hannity the other night Megan Kelly and Juan F’n Williams were discussing the killings. Sean asked Juan what would be his suggestion to prevent killings like this from happening; of course Juan said to ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Megan said, banning assault rifles would NOT have prevented the killings because the children were not killed by an assault rifle, it was found in the trunk of the vehicle that Adam Lanza was driving. WHY do the media keep bringing up this killing as the basis for taking away our 2nd amendment If Adam didn’t even shoot his moms AR?? Who in the hell shot those kids WITH a .223?? This story smells as fishy as F&F and Benghazi!!
Report this comment
Bum thrower
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:32pmI think the perp had sone sort of semi-auto shot gun in the trunk; wasn’t even an AR; also he used the ‘new york reload’ inside the school; one pistol runs dry; throw it down and pull out another…
The media can’t get the story straight, even if they really wanted to. Selling opportunity; have you seen the price of AR’s?? I bot mine during the first ‘scary lookin’ gun ban’ for $575; bet I could sell it for $2500!!
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:58pmOh this one is easy! Minka once again is lying to you to carry out the narrative against an assault weapons ban. he did in fact use his bushmaster semi auto riffle. no gun was found in his trunk, http://elitedaily.com/elite/2012/gun-adam-lanza/
Report this comment
Keatonc33
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 1:00pmI correct myself. there was a gun found in the truck.. though it was NOT the .223 AR15 bushmaster it was a type of shotgun.
http://www.patriotthoughts.com/2013/01/10/rifle-found-in-lanzas-trunk-not-a-bushmaster/
Report this comment
Tigress1
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:20pmHow does the government celebrate the “Year of the Snake”? A huge snake killing in the Everglades! Gun owners missed a huge opportunity to tell the gov. with it’s desire to ban guns to solve their problems on their own without the help from those “evil” gun owners!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/12/nearly-800-eager-hunters-descend-upon-florida-for-states-unconventional-python-challenge/
Report this comment
Ron Staiger
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:14pmYeah, you Marxist Pig- Barack “Barry Soweto” Hussein Obama- I’m still clinging to my guns and my bible while you cling to your racist, black-nationalist, marxist ideology and your vile, evil qur’an
Report this comment
Red Meat
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:21pmDavid, Boobie, the idea is not to let Obama have the opportunity to write an unconstitutional edict. Get a clue.
Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:11pmObama will do more than use the power of his office – he will seize power by executive order bypassing Congress once again.
Report this comment
fixer
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:11pmlet him try….BIG mistake…HUGE
Report this comment
Ron Staiger
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:08pmMillions of Americans own SEMI-automatic rifles and use them for shooting sports and home defense. The rabidly leftist “gun control” advocates have gleefully latched on to the despicable acts in CT with a particularly vile political opportunism in their hearts, a copy of ‘Rules for Radicals’ (opened to the page with the line “let no crises go to waste”) in the one hand and a pen waiting to sign away our Second Amendment rights clutched in the other. This leftist, treasonous attempt to subjugate the rights granted by the wisdom of our forefathers (who they so vociferously despise) is done with the full knowledge that not one person will be saved by their treachery. Using their logic, one could make the case that because of the widespread carnage on our nation’s highways, all vehicles capable of driving in excess of 65mph should be banned or governors installed to restrict their speed. I wonder if these wackjobs would have been personally disappointed about the slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary if the murderer had used two 5 gallon cans of gas instead.
Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:13pmGun violence thrives in those places with the most restrictive gun laws.
Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:56amon: Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:13pm
Jerk did not bring Jews into the conversation. Will wonders ever cease?
Report this comment
banjarmon
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:08pmThe Second Amendment – Right to Bear Arms. 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.
This is MY RIGHT to OWN and to BEAR ARMS PERIOD!!!!
Report this comment
decendentof56
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 12:47pmYes….exactly!
Most do not understand that when the 2nd was penned, the founders were referring to the “individual free states” in the “a well-regulated militia” phrase. Most were worried that a standing National Army was dangerous to our freedoms. So….that is why the 2nd ends in “the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
So, what do we see today? DHS buying millions of rounds of ammo, the NDAA, and a internet “kill” switch.
The rioters in Michigan are exactly what B Ayers and B Obama want…..people running to the devil for protection and help! They are too stupid and uninformed to see that the very people they seek for help are the ones who caused them to NEED the help!
Report this comment
YOURSENSEI
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 4:47pmThis is what you must know:
DING DONG . . . Yes, I’m here to collect your assault rifle . . . You can offer it voluntarily or you can resist . . . If you refuse, I have a warrant to enter the premises and collect it . . . If you resist with deadly force you will be shot . . . Yes, good decision . . .Thank you.”
And so conservatives will surrender their arms rather than follow through with their threats.
It is so.
Report this comment
TinCanSailor3109
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:02amYourSensei -
It would be more like: Yes, I sold those items and doubled my money. No, there’s no law requiring the reporting of a sale between individuals. Sure you can come in and look around, but you might want to get another couple hundred people and search the 2500 forested acres behind my home, including the quarter million trees. You’re right, it would be a waste of time. Thanks for stopping by.
Report this comment