It would be funny if he wasn't in charge of creating the gun control manadate that will be thrown in our face for the next 4 years.

I wonder if the little squeaky guy in the 'Parents' magazine interview provided a Lewinsky for old Joe? What a clown...

Sarah Palin: Cute. Monty Python Cute.

Joe Biden: Example how far Team Obama and Progressive Liberals are over reaching.

Mentioning New York State’s SAFE Act Gun Control Bill: As I write 32-counties officially oppose said SAFE Act and the process that brought that turkey into being.

IMHO you are watching the single handed destruction of a governor by his own doing. He managed to piss off law enforcement, hunters, gun manufacturing, gun collectors, and 58-sheriffs who got out in a very embarrassing position: enforce the Law=violate the Constitution. He pissed off legislators who were embarrassed by the midnight passage. Pissed off every county clerk in NYS. Now Cuomo & Co. are asking for amendments to make their showcase legislation work. Gunners won’t help since amendments would weaken the legal challenges to SAFE Act.

Only Prince Andy could do this. Clearly not presidential material.

Paragraph #1 is superb. I like the cut of your jib Mr. Petzal.

NBC and Mr. Costello peddling biased and incorrect propaganda as journalism?? Never, they're nearly as credible as the New York Times.

Amazing how Obama is crying about the impending tax increases and spending cuts that he came up with and how they are going to cripple our economy if the Republicans let them go into effect, while he is out golfing with a manslut. Really they get a 10 day vacation for what they are calling President's Day? There is no such thing. There is one president that has a federal holiday and it is George Washington, it is called Washington's Birthday. They can't even get that right.

When they start talking about guns I tune them all out. Even your new girlfriend Sarah...

The first and most important mistake a person can make is under estimating their enemy. The trick is as old as time. From the "Great and Powerful Oz", to the little kid that throws away his crutches for the Snake Oil Salesmen, to the schill in a 3 Card Monti game. Joey is nothing new, just misderection. Talk about him and not the important topics.

While I have never been a big fan of the rifle as a house defense weapon due to concerns about over penetration, I have had a long and abiding affection for the 12 gauge shotgun.
Yes, long ago I even had a double barreled Coach Gun for a while (short, cylinder bore barrels) for home defense.

This year I upgraded to a Remington 870 pump shotgun with a six round magazine (a total of seven with one in the chamber). I installed a Hogue pistol grip and over molded fore end and plan on getting a Side Saddle extra round carrier for the receiver. It is a very handy package and believe me, I do not feel under-gunned with it at hand.

The problem is: If Joe Biden were to see my new shotgun, he would most assuredly name my home defense weapon an “assault weapon” or “high capacity weapon” or something equally inflammatory so that he could justify separating me from the House Mouse.

If the truth were known, a double barreled 12 gauge fired buck shot or slugs still leaves the neighbors in jeopardy of loosing their lives as both types of ammunition are renowned for penetrating sheet rock and siding. As in so many other cases, it would seem the folks least qualified for commenting on firearms technology are the only ones who make it to the television.

As an aside, maybe the Federal government could give subsidies to purchase double barreled 12 gauge shotguns for single moms and other weaponless folks because they (double barrels) are among the most expensive of the breed…typical government solution…the most expensive and least effective.

Love your act DEP. Do you think that Todd Palin's 4 Iron Man Snowmobile wins were faked? Do you think that working on the Slope is less dangerous than working in Washington? The Palin's have a life that is just a little more close to the sportsmans than that of the gobsmacked Biden. I don't know what your problem is, but anyone who thinks the Palin's are less outdoor people than the Biden's is stunningly stupid. I can't belive that you get paid to be such a tool.

goforride- If someone breaks into my house, I am getting my mossberg 500. But, options are a very good thing. If your shotgun is setup for hunting (like most of ours probably are), The smaller, shorter AR-15, or handgun might be a better choice. I don't have an AR. The only reason I would get one is for coyote hunting. But, if you have the skill to use it in the dark, it might be worth it.

I will be the first to say I am all for people owning guns. But, it is getting annoying that all these people are starting to say they want an AR-15 for "home defense". It is the most impractical gun for home defense, rounds go to far, they are too long to clear halls, and often times people have a hard time getting the gun on target quickly. 90% of American are home at night sleeping. I am willing to bet 75% of burglaries happen in the day when no one is home. That 25% are drug rips. For home defense I think having any gun in the house will do fine. I keep my J Frame S&W 38 in my night stand. Small, but easily to use, never fails, and a 38 is a deadly round.

@Lab12:
satire
noun /ˈsaˌtīr/ 
1.The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

The AR-15 actually makes a lot more sense for home defense than most people realize. I've watched a number of home-penetration test videos, and surprisingly the .223 round with varmint ammunition was one of the safest rounds in the house in the event of a miss - the bullets tend to fragment on impact, minimizing excess penetration. The small size of some of the carbines also makes them rather handy. I don't own one, and I'm still more of a shotgun fan, but I can definitely see some merit to the use of one in the home.

This issue is not over which gun is best or right for home protection. We've always had, going back to colonial musket and percussion days, "military style" rifles in the hands of civilians and that includes the progression to semi-automatics that were introduced as military rifles.

As soon as we accept the argument about whether we "need" AR-15s for home defense or not, we lose.

Its not about whether someone thinks we "need" something or not.

My guess is that cigarettes cause more deaths than firearms, but the a-holes in DC don't bother to ban cigarettes.

They want firearms one step at a time.

So for you folks who don't think an AR is a good home defense gun, why do SWAT teams always carry them when clearing a house?

After reading this it is quite obvious that Sarah Palin has been teaching Joe Biden defensive tactics and he has been teaching her field marksmanship. It all makes sense now!

One other thing I forgot to mention. Joe, as far as I'm aware, is also the only VP in the history of this country to ever charge the Secret Service agents who protect his sorry arse rent for staying on his domicile. Considering the advice Biden's giving his wife about shooting shotguns out the door, maybe they should consider charging him extra for hazardous duty.

Williamk8987-
Should any undesirable person enter my domicile, vehicle, personal space, or deer camp, you can bet you last dollar I will definitely be in an offence mode, with whatever firearm is first available.

MReeder:
Hillary and Bill also charged rent for the SS to stay on their property.

Mr. P.

Yes, we get your sarcasm regarding Sarah Palin. It is a foolish tact. A great many of your current readers consider her and her family to be good people who live by high standards of honor.

You don't help yourself by continuing to disparage her and her family.

What would one expect from a system sucking liberal Democrat?? I have a question...in the photo op of our wonderful Imperial President shooting a "shotgun" at sporting clays..what the hell was he shooting? A red tip in the end of of the tube, and gases flowing at a 90 degree angle...maybe it was just more of Joe's horsecrap, loaded into a shotgun shell? These people need removed and sent home...but the way the Repubs have no guts,,we are always gonna be in trouble..remember the saying.."When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns?..we are close..wish I could remove all my dead ancestors from Western NY and plant them elsewhere..I am sure the Civil War vets turn over with how that craphole has become..

CRM, I have a similar mindset my property is my property and unless your welcomed we will have issues. But to many people put themselves in harms way for no reason. If there are 2 or 3 people armed and stealing your car what is getting in a shoot out going to do? Like they say in many police academies when off duty don't approach a threat rather arm yourself and be a good witness. Don't get me wrong if someone is entering my house and threating my family iI will address the threat. But theres no need for people to get shot over a stolen porperty. There is more to home defense then firepower and tactics. You need to be intelligent too.

Kudukid... I would leave that up to the local police and military. I would Have a gun near by for protection but as a civilian I'm not going to address threats, that's my job and being vigilante is illegal.

JohnR

That was a question, not an opinion.

Kudukid
In response to your question; as the safety of me and my family may in fact depend on the continued possession of my truck and our mobility, I'm going to dissuade the miscreants.
We have not paid heed to the lessons of the aftermath of 'Katrina'. In a situation where the availability of police response is not a given, I would expect that responsible people will firmly but politely prevent looting and theft. Some areas of NOLA did just that and suffered no property losses.

BTW, that incident of the elderly woman in New Orleans prompted a law in South Carolina that no law-enforcement agent may take a firearm from someone in their home under similar circumstances.

Kudakid... If there is a serious emergency they will increase police and even activate the national gaurd, coast guard, and many federal agencies. If law enforcement or military sees some gun nut fighting off looters with assault weapons they will be shot not thanked. In time of emergency defend your family not your ego. Assault rifles are great hobby guns and can used for hunting and home defense. But to say you need one for international car thieves and national emergency is crazy talk.

You don't think I nor anyone here will believe that story do you? Come on man this Anit the 1800s people can't go all over shooting people. Even the New Orlenas police were questioned after rumors of the chief saying shoot looters.

Williamk8987

That was not a made up story - it happened as I depicted. 357 was a 3" bbl Smith stainless.

Bullet not removed and probably setting off metal detectors to this day.

Great comments Dave. By the way did you catch the other CO. pol named Salazar who said women don't need guns for protection. He said that they can blow a whistle or retreat to a safe zone or use a call box. His reasoning was that a woman might become frightened and possibly shoot some one by mistake because women can't think very straight. The Co. Speaker of the House supported his remarks. Where is David Gregory when you need him? By the way anyone know what has been dumped in the drinking water in the US the last 8 years?

@firedog11
You mean other than fluoride to pacify the people?
Same as Hitler did?

Kudukid... your too much I will never believe that story.

Williamk8987:

For openers, see if you are able to figure out what a contraction is.

Then check my story by looking up the Chief of Police for Charleston, South Carolina during hurricane Hugo.

Then you can look up his phone number - he lives in Tryon, North Carolina. Call him and ask about it.

Kentucky- Don't get me wrong I love the AR-15 and I have been trained in it as well. My problem with the AR-15 is rounds do go to far and travel to fast. Just imagine taking a shot, missing, and the round going so far it hits your neighbor's house or even worse your neighbor. It sounds like you wouldn't have the problem, but most Americans would. Also, they travel so fast that I get concerned about knock down power. For self defnese you want to end the fight ASAP.

Kudukid- I'm not wasting my time looking up some "story" you created.

so i am curious dave,

what happened to the questions that we as field and stream subscribers sent to you guys to be presented to the biden gun control squad? also what questions were picked and asked?

Williamk8987:

You called me a liar, sir, and your bluff has been called.

It is obvious you are not man enough to admit it.

The nonsense is the way you butcher English.

Williamk8987; in response to your query: Discharging a firearm in the city limits; and Crazy Joe is not president, but he is a heartbeat away.
Also in response to a previous remark of yours: During a serious emergency the Coast Guard does not need to be activated because they're already there, their motto is Semper Paratus...Always Ready. I know, I served.
For home defense, I'll stick with my Pappy's Colt Officer Model .38 sp with 158 grain lead ball. Shoot with a flashlight in my left hand and use it to support my shooting hand just like the CG trained me.
The AR-15, M-4 carbine with 16" barrel and adjustable stock with 10 round mag is highly recommended for women's home defense due to the light weight and ease of use with light attachments or a laser sight mounted on the rails to assist aiming.
With the proper load it's also great for keeping feral hogs out of your yard if you live in certain parts of Texas.

Greg Arnold:

I'm also a Coast Guard vet, although I'm sure Williamk8987 won't believe that either!

Semper Paratus

To coachesjike: I dunno. I sent in questions along with a lot of other folks and we will see the results here this coming week.

To those of you who have called me a genius, thank you, you're quite right, but with material like this to work with, it would be impossible to write anything dull. By the way, I intended no insult to chimpanzees by comparing them to politicians. I have the greatest respect for chimps.

Ok. Moving on.

Dave; Got my March F&S Saturday. Really like your ASK PETZAL column. Information and dry humor in one package.

While I agree with most of your article (and respect the bulk of your opinions), you must have been smoking something when you wrote the first article about Sarah Palin. By far the most dishonest and scariest beeyotch on the planet, her sportsman-like qualities are non-existant, and she speaks like she has a gag in her mouth. I'm sure your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek, but how about telling us how you REALLY feel about this moron?

I starting to believe that Dems think differently, and they will fall on their sword to further their agenda. I live in Colorado and have watched the gun control train wreck live.

While not as old or as crusty as Mr. Petzal, its clear to me the views and values I grew up with are now labeled "extreme" and what was once right and good, is now "bad".

Firearms were given to sons when I was a youth as a right of passage, as part of a welcome into adulthood, as was a driver's license. Now that thinking borders on child abuse. After all, what 15 year old NEEDS a 12 GA.?The Dem's and the press have successfully demonized an inantimate objects. Here in Colorado its "hi cap magazines" which are really standard magazines.

Yeah Lee. Back in the day a jacknife was the first step on the rite of passage. I carried a knife from the time I was 8 or so, everyday at school and everywhere else. These days that's a felony. Banning carrying knives has caused no increase in safety or improved graduation rates that I have noticed.

About the intimidation part, there is an old school of thought that says "nothing scares a burglar more than the sound of a pump gun being racked." Even the late, great, Bill Jordan , who fought the Japanese in bunkers and tunnels in the Pacific (all 6 feet 8 inches of him, taller than Michael) armed with an 1897 Winchester, plus countless more lowlifes during his law-enforcement days, thought so. I'm no Bill Jordan, so I won't argue with him.

Except to say that there's a new school of thought now gaining traction with both armed robbers and policemen that says "if he's rackin' that shotgun (or any other weapon, for that matter), I'm shooting in his direction."

Greg Arnold;does"the land of the giants"mean anything to you?

What's crazier? VP Biden's irrational rants or the fact that the current administration got re-elected? The enitre BHO administration is firmly in favor of installing further gun control and restrictions to our freedom.

With gun ownership comes responsiblility. As someone who has a concealed pistol permit it is MY RESPONSIBILTY to inform any law enforcement person that I come in contact with that I have such permit and am carrying. Unfortunately, I am still LIMITED with my right of protecting myself because of GUN FREE ZONES. Current events (school and church mass murders) highlight that socialpaths focus on these soft targets to install evil and yet the national debate keeps the focus on irrational gun control legislation.

When is the U.S. government going to hold the criminal population RESPONSIBLE? VP Biden has commented that we do not have the manpower to enforce current laws. I witness on a daily basis FELONIES being plead down to a MISD. or worse yet, outright dismissed!Enacting tougher sentencing to serve as a deterent for the laws that we currently have is not even mentioned in the national debate. Instead the current administration is only focused on further restrictions to those of us who are RESPONSIBLE gun owners by their constant attempts to further restrict our freedoms. Don't be fooled, Biden and company want all weapons period. The fact that our children are still being used for baiting socialpaths isn't even being addressed. Is Biden hosestly concerned about our safety or is he more concerned about implementing his gun grabbing agenda?

Clay Cooper:

Wish I could have given a barrel full of yes votes...keep it up!

BTW, the absolute best argument against the gun-grabbers is to be found in Ron Spomer's article "Rifles" in the current March/April issue of "Sporting Classics".
It is a masterpiece of thinking and writing.

i think politicians should be compared to the "ass", "jackass" that is!

@ Ted Ford; Sequoia National Forest

For those who would accept the banning of a particular firearm type or firearm mechanism because it isn't your favorite make or model, gauge or caliber...
please do not beg and bewail your fate when the crocodile comes for a meal and you're the only one left.

If the tyrants are allowed to ban semi-automatic firearms, then the precedent is set to ban all the rest - including yours!

To Kudukid - they aren't banning all semi-automatic weapons. Get your facts right. This is one of the things I am talking about in my post. We have people out their trying to fight against things or enumerate their rights, and they cannot even argue from the basic facts. They make up inflammatory arguments, and make people who defend firearms look like liars or like they are completely misinformed.

As per your argument Kudu.... The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. It isn't a position which is seen in the real world, which means that it isn't a defensible position, it has not weight in an argument, it's paranoia.... and it makes us all look like those crazy people oppose to fluoride in the water.

To Thaddeus nelson:

"As per your argument Kudu.... The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. It isn't a position which is seen in the real world, which means that it isn't a defensible position, it has not weight in an argument, it's paranoia.... and it makes us all look like those crazy people oppose to fluoride in the water."

Would you please explain this to the good gun owners of Australia where even pump shotguns have been outlawed , collected and cut up for scrap metal!.

Thaddeus:

Australia isn't an anecdote, it's a sad example of reality. Australia, as most of us know, is but one example in a world full of similar examples.

Just because you say something is an illogical fallacy does not make it so.

The problem is that the gun issue has to be measured against the 2nd Amendment. It is either a right or it isn't.

Suppose the federal government said you may not possess a megaphone. Measured against the 1st Amendment that would be the beginning of a slippery slope. At least that would be my opinion.

Your example of yelling fire in a crowded theater is much better compared with not being permitted to discharge my 30/06 in downtown Manhattan. That's different than prohibiting possession of my rifle.

Kudukid

If you don't think that Australia is an anecdote in this discussion, I don't think you know what that word means. I don't say this to fight or belittle you, but because you don't seem to recognize a word and something that fits its definition.

As for your disagreement with slippery slope... It is a logical fallacy look it up. Would taking away a megaphone be a slippery slope... no.. it would be a single action without a physical or logically necessary next step. It would also be legal and constitutional in many situations. (Causing danger, disturbance, violating public or private property rights, etc.) This is the danger of the logical fallacy you are using. It makes any action seem dangerous or potentially wrong, when it isn't. You link one action that is appropriate to something that may not be, even if there is not necessary transition between the two.

As per your argument that yelling fire in a crowded theater is more like some other restriction on firearms, I have two points. A) that is an opinion, not an argument. That is how you see two things.

B) You are either missing my point or purposefully misinterpreting it to try and support your argument.
My point was that while many rights are outlined in the constitution they are frequently limited by judicial, legislative, or executive means. This doesn't mean these limits violate the constitution. We all benefit from these limitations (you can't sell poison to children calling it candy, you can't sell beer to a 10 year old, you cannot teach young earth creationism in schools, there are valid limitations on who can vote and hold office outside of those expressed in the constitution).

While firearms supporters like to frame the second amendment as absolute. That would make it the only absolute amendment. This argument makes firearms supports seem either like they are liars or they misunderstand the basic structure of rights in this wonderful country. It also makes them seem like they are either unaware or are hiding from the countless restrictions on firearms and weapons already allowed in the US. I cannot go out and hunt ducks with more than three shells in a shotgun, and you cannot build a giant bomb from a heap of fertilizer. If the Second Amendment was as absolute as people like you make it out to be, then neither of these (or countless other laws) would stand for more than a moment).

Now as far as AR-15s. It seems that gun advocates want to have a reason to both defend them as necessary and as immaterial in shootings like those in CT. These are two contrary propositions. Either they are deadly firearms better for home defense than anything else and they are better for shooting up a school (based on the reasons people cite for either activity), or they are neither. Gun supporters who want the AR-15 are stuck either supporting that it is also great for gunning down young children or they need to fall onto the logical fallacy of the slippery slope.

Thank you Mr Petzal for your compliment and for responding directly to me. I am a big fan, so having you say that I am too perspicacious is simply discommodious. Maybe it is because I don't use lead in my splitshot's or ammo?

Sounds like Thaddeus (tad) Nelson may be barking up too dull of a tree too.

Thaddeus:

If you don't think Australia is an example in this discussion then I don't believe you know what the word means.

We are not dealing with rational people in this administration. Biden is a good EXAMPLE of this.

Obama is another EXAMPLE. He has said many times he believes only law enforcement agents and the military should be allowed to possess handguns. Keep in mind he currently occupies the top law enforcement post in the country.

For those not old enough to remember, there were democrats writing bills to outlaw nunchucks, throwing stars and butterfly knives back in the 80's and 90's.

You may think these are wonderful people to be trusted with our rights and freedoms but I DON"T!

I don't believe any of our rights are absolute but the people we are facing don't believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right despite the SCOTUS Heller decision.
Holder and the rest of this administration still believe it is a right to form a militia and have said so.

If we do things that have the effect of thinning our ranks it only makes us weaker.

Labrador
I understand you can shoot a kid with a shotgun. This is part of my point. Either Ar-15s and the like are no better or worse than shotguns and other legal firearms, in which case there is no argument that we need them (an argument many make), or they are terrible weapons of death better for defense but also for killing innocents. Too many firearms enthusiasts try to argue one but not the other and make these a useless weapon in the hands of a killer but the ideal weapon to defend yourself against a band of robbers who would otherwise overpower you (much the same way we want to overpower shooters).

Kudukid
As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. There is not scientific or logically necessary link between your example and the world around you. It is a single non-scientific observation. It may scare you, bother you, make you hopeful, inspire any feeling, but it is not a scientific or logical basis for argument. This is the problem with people who defend firearms. Believe it or not, I am not arguing here to ban AR-15s or anything like it. I am stating that those who enjoy and support guns are doing more to make everyone who wants to own or use a firearm look like a paranoid delusional or uneducated hick than responsible adults.

You call Biden illogical, but you resort through that to the classical logical fallacy of the ad hominen attack. You repeatedly cite the slippery slope argument, which has no logical ground. You argue from interpretations of anecdotes as evidence. You tell me we cannot trust these people etc etc, but that is an opinion... that is not something that one can actually support with any sort of logical argument. It makes everyone who wants firearms look like a nut by association.

As per it being an individual right, yes SCOTUS says that. I agree, that is a fact, but firearms fans flash it about as a get out of jail free argument. Can the government define individual rights in ways that are not absolutes. Yes. Does that mean the federal government can ban or restrict certain types of weapons. Yes, according to many laws that have not been struck down by the court.

Dave; I received my March F&S today and thanks for a good comeback to use when I might next be referred to as a contumacious old grouch. I bow to the master.

A guy with his level of Secret Service protection has no business offering security advice to the public.

Thaddeus:
I have given you evidence, but I'll get to that later...

Regarding your second paragraph: Firstly, there is no law...yet.
Have firearms been restricted in the past - yes. The approach from this administration is that the AR15, and by the proposals of feinstein and boxer, a great many more firearms should be banned. These are constructed on mechanisms that have been with us for a hundred years. They have also been popular with the public for that same time period. Nevertheless, according to this administration, they should now be banned.

obama has clearly stated his opposition to private ownership of all handguns. He is in position to name one or more new justices to the Supreme Court. A shift to a liberal court and Heller is out the window. Do I disrespect this community organizer...you bet I do!!!!
He has had Americans assassinated without due process. He has made himself judge, jury and executioner. Oh. that's OK, it was in a foreign country and it was only one man and his son. Oh, and a lot of people didn't like him. Was his threat even "imminent"? No, he had been on the "obama's "kill list" for many months. His son, another American, well that was just collatteral damage - nothing to be concerned about.

The 2nd Amendment does not have to be destroyed in one massive power grab. It can just as easily or even more easily be done one step at a time. The boil a frog scenario.

Now, as far as getting from step A to step Z that you disparage because it is only one step, let us apply the principle of mathematical induction. If I can take one step up a ladder, I can take a second and a third and so on. I would much rather not take any steps in the direction of reducing my "unalienable" Creator-given rights.

What is disquieting is that so many seem to believe we do ourselves some sort of favor by caving in on this rather than putting up a rigorous up defense or, heaven forbid, an actual offense. This isn't even a defense, it is surrender before the fight begins. It is a strategy for losers.

As far as putting words in the collective mouths of this administration and their supporting party, I don't have to as the readers here are quite familiar with the hatred of all firearms that they spew unceasingly.

"Do some rights get restricted? Yes. Do all rights? No." is very scary rhetoric from someone on this blog!
How many of my rights are you willing to give up on my behalf?

Thankfully, at least you recognize the 2nd Amendment might be used to end tyranny (I'd rather use it to prevent tyranny.). Yes, the AR15 might be an excellent weapon for that purpose and I believe most here would agree with that as well.

Generally this blog is for folks who enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights and it is to these folks I direct my comments.

OK, biden is wrong, obama is wrong, holder is wrong, axelrod is wrong, schumer is wrong, reid is wrong, pelosi is wrong, feinstein is wrong, boxer is wrong and 90% or more among democrats are wrong. They are all wrong because they have continually done their level best to diminish my 2nd Amendment rights for as long as I can remember. Fortunately the NRA and hard working supporters of the 2nd Amendment have been fighting the good fight and have managed to stave off the Trojans in their horse.

BTW, did you know George Soros is now backing the new democrat group attacking Republicans in critical districts...Republicans who support the 2nd Amendment?

Kudukid

Ok, to address your points. Has this technology been around and is it popular. Sure. Is this a legal argument? possibly, but not necessarily. This same argument was used to support slavery. It would also be used to support many things that are illegal (drugs, jaywalking, date rape). Just because something has been a round a long time doesn't make it legal.

Obama oppose public handgun ownership. So what. That doesn't impact an argument about something that isn't a hand gun. This is the Red Herring fallacy. You argue that he may put liberals on the bench who overturn Heller. Two big problems with that. First, it took most of our nation's history for a conservative president to put those on the bench who would support Heller and find that interpretation. If the conservatives can put those on the bench with one interpretation, then the liberals can do the opposite. That is how things work. If you support Heller, support the system that let it pass. Second, your argument about assault rifle rights is based on what may happen if Obama puts someone on the bench.

As for assassination. Yes I agree with you. That is terrible. But unless you are arguing you need the specific weapons being banned to prevent this behavior by shooting the people responsible, introducing this is a further red herring. It is not part of the argument, it is simply paranoia.

Removing the second amendment in parts? Boiling a frog? Google slippery slope, go to wikipedia. One example of the logical fallacy "Small change tolerance, colloquially referred to as the "boiling frog": People may ignore gun registration because it constitutes just a small change, but when combined with other small changes, it could lead to the equivalent of confiscation." This is not a reason to argue something, unless you can line up a list of causal relationships that are indisputable. (ie it's bad to put your hand in boiling water because you will get hurt vs. it is bad to have water in your house, because your might boil it, then put your hand in it and get burnt). You cannot use induction based on what might happen, it only works on what will happen.

I understand you have a problem with the phrase rights restricted. But they often are through the definition of the law. I point to yelling fire in the crowded theater. It might scare you that I read this blog, but I am sitting here saying I support the second amendment. I am not sure I agree with banning AR-15s. However, what I am absolutely saying is that you and those who wright blog pieces like this are the ones who endanger the second amendment and future rights. You put forward specious arguments full of logical fallacies. I am asking that those who support firearms put down the arguments they hear in the echo chamber, and come up with honest, intelligent, and cogent arguments for their positions.

So you disagree with Biden and Obama. That is fine. But they both came out recently supporting various gun rights. Biden said guns are good for household protection. Obama supported their use in sports. What does your average Democrat learn from this, guns have their uses.

Let's look at the last administration. What was the biggest news on guns? Certainly we know Bush and Cheney supported them. I am right there. Good position. But the biggest news was that even though they support guns, Cheney was still sufficiently irresponsible to shoot someone in the face. Anyone following the safety precautions taught by any of the recognized hunter safety courses or the NRA would have avoided this accident. Does this mean guns are bad or wrong, no. It means they require responsible ownership and use. How will this and other accidents get painted when all conservative will argue is that people need their guns? Not as an example of the need for safety, I will tell you that.

This blog can be for anyone. Even those who sleep cuddled up with their AR-15s, but as long as they embrace logic a junior-high teach would mark off for in an essay, they do a disservice to those who support the second amendment.

Thaddeus:

As I thought, you continue to disparage my arguments. Fine. Also fine that we have someone who occupies the White House who feels he has the right to kill Americans if he believes it's justified. That is the action of a tyrant. According to you that has nothing to do with anything. But it does - you see this tyrant is attempting to diminish rights intended to prevent tyranny with the full force of the office he occupies.

Since you have provided none of the arguments for keeping the several hundred semi-automatic weapons being targeted by obama and the democrats for banning - arguments specifically requested - you clearly have no such arguments - stunning or otherwise. Just a lot of hot air, a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

You have my permission to assume a fetal position and begin sucking your thumb. I definitely don't want you at my back!

My personal preference for personal protection/home de-fence is my Weatherby PA-08-Threat Response model. The 18 1/2 inch barrel is great for maneuverability and it is short enough that I can fit it into the toolbox on the four-wheeler for checking cows. I agree with Biden that doubles are great for home defense, I just cannot justify banning other models and types because of cosmetic features and forcing people to limit magazine capacity. As far as AR's for personal protection, I believe that there is enough ammo that fragments on impact that over-penetration would not be an issue. However, I believe that every individual should be able to pick what they want for their own use, whether it is an AR or a single shot 12 gauge.
I am apposed to any ban of firearms styles or models because I believe that if people are against a certain kind of firearm they should just not use it, instead of trying to get it banned so that nobody else can use it, whether it be for sport shooting, hunting, or personal protection.

P.S. I hope there are no chimps insulted by being compared to politicians, especially those in the current administration.

Sorry, typing from pad before bed. I meant to say that at worst they come off as liars who simply mean to inspire fear.

Thaddeus has, quite apparently, become a gun-grabber himself since all he will do is complain ad nauseam about other arguments against proposed gun bans but is absolutely unwilling to give us any support for our rights.

I know an obama/biden supporter when I smell one and your daddy being an NRA instructor doesn't mean squat.

Here is an example of a slippery slope that came true...

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Friedrich Gustav Martin Niemöller's words, more than 50 years ago

Kudukid

While I appreciate that you wish to defame me as a gun grabber, this is simply another attack, not an argument for firearms. If you read my posts, you would see that I did post my argument for them, numerous posts ago. You are being completely disingenuous. As for your slippery slope... Nice you can quote someone... Please google the phrase "reductio ad hitlerum". Also remember, that the quote you use can easily be turned around and appled to any group, by anyone. It is especially strange that you choose to use a quote opposing thefar right wing, and supporting the left.

Thaddeus Nelson,
You have been repeating my viewpoint, only in a much more eloquent manner.
Although I too am against the current proposals of banning the civilian AR, our (gun owners) argument that it amounts to a slippery slope just doesn't compute or follow history as evidenced by the firearms restrition legislation of 1934. It simply has not led to that evil overpowering govt eventually confiscating all firearms the conspiracy theorists prophesies.
Good on you for recognizing that we as gun owners need to project ourselves as part of the reality based crowd.

Sorry for the eps at post, net went all wonky, and iPad tried to update cached copy too Many times. Admin, if possible delete the extra posts.

Just delete Thaddeus Nelson, problem solved....

If F&S pays by the comment, Petzal's set for life after these last 2 articles

Thaddeus,
Long time reader of the site and I had to create an account just to reply to your posts. I believe the proper way to look at this is WHY do they want to ban AR's and "assault weapons?" It is for the safety of the public, correct? And since "assault weapons" are used in a miniscule amount of gun crimes, one can surmise that the next step is handguns since they account for a large percentage of gun crime. This is the "slippery slope" argument you so vehemently argue against. In addition Feinstein is on video stating she would support surrender of all privately owned firearms. My disagreement with an AWB is that it addresses no true cause of violent crime and will have little to no effect on protecting the public in general. It is therefore an unnecessary piece of legislation aimed at only further restricting my rights. The gun grabbers must prove to me that there is empirical evidence that their policies will make people safer, not make me defend why I need the guns I choose to buy. We are currently fighting this battle in MD and gun owners need to stand together in these trying times.

SMC
I appreciate a response. The problem with the first point you make is the statement "One can surmise". This is not a legal or logical argument. It could equally as well be said that "I believe the proper way to look at this is WHY do they want to ban AR's and "assault weapons?" It is for the safety of the public, correct? And since "assault weapons" are used in a miniscule amount of gun crimes, one can surmise" (To quote you).... That this would be an easy law to reverse in the courts. When you present a slippery slope argument for any reason, it is open to a literally infinite amount of what ifs, variable personal choices, and the individuality of actors.

If you think back to the earlier federal assault weapon ban, these same slippery slope arguments were made then. What happened? We still have guns in America. We still have AR-15s and hand guns. We don't have black helicopters in the sky or implanted ID chips. But it certainly made the people saying these things look crazy.

As per your your problem with Feinstein, I have seen her on video saying she is fine with people owning firearms. Does one position or the other make it wrong for her to propose a law that will be subject to votes? No. Does it mean there will be a valid slippery slope argument... No.

As per your argument that these weapons cause relatively little crime. Ok. That is a cogent, logical, and well thought out argument. It is also one half of the problematic argument I have been asking for an answer to.
Certainly statistics do support that these weapons are used in fewer crimes. But this isn't the argument that is being placed against them. Suggesting this is the argument is an over simplification. The actual argument is that these firearms are especially deadly in certain situations, like that seen in CT or the theater in Colorado. The argument that has been put forward is that the safety issue is not a quantity argument but a quality argument (think driving 25mph for 8 hours a day is less dangerous than driving 150for 20 minutes).
When it suits them, firearm supporters say that this is untrue. They claim that the these guns cannot be fired more quickly, that there is no material advantage to larger clips or semi-automatic fire, that it is just as easy to stop a person with one of these rifles, and in effect that their is no functional difference that makes these better weapons for killing people.
Conversely, when you ask a firearm supporter why they want these guns, what uses do they fill, they change their tune (sometimes in the same conversation). These weapons are often sited as the be all and end all of home self defense based on accuracy, stopping power, the firing speed and amount of ammunition they can hold, the ability to keep a person with the weapon from being overpowered. In short, the arguments that firearm supporters as a community have been putting forward are that these guns are either safe because they are useless or wonderful because they are deadly.

I just think that if there is a reasoned argument to be made, the incongruity here needs to be figured out. Secondly, that firearms supporters would do much to further their cause by taking every step possible to not sound like illogical paranoids who you probably would not feel safe with having a gun.

Dear Thad,

Your allegorical and anachronistical quantitative verisimilitudes are highly indicative of an nonfortuitous plethoristical admixation of bovine-derived fecalisthical material and non-cooled gaseous matter. Please cease and desist forthwith, if not in a time period lesser than the surmisable period of time indicated in the previous contiguous statement.

Peace out brother,

Amflyer

To those above:

1) No I am not paid by the democratic party. If I were, and my express position, which I have stated multiple times is that the second amendment is good thing and an essential part of America, I fail to see what the issue is. (I happen to be posting quite a bit because I am feeling under the weather today, and am taking breaks between my other writing, not that any of that matters).

2) I don't stand directly with Obama, Biden, or Feinstein (I have stated direct disagreements above). What I said was that all three have stated support for gun rights at times (Biden and Obama quite recently and directly). My point is that instead of using these people as insults, those, including myself, who support the second amendment should be praising these statements. Biden says that it is alright to shoot intruders on your property? Isn't that something every single proponent of firearms has wanted a VP to say for years, let alone a liberal Democrat? Instead of looking to this, everyone makes fun of Biden. If it is Palin or Biden saying that, it is a good thing. If, as many seem to be stating here, it is wrong to agree with Biden, because he is Biden, you are arguing against a pro-second amendment statement. When Cheney shot his friend, gun supports cheered on his rights, even though from a safety aspect it was avoidable and a terrible mistake. When Obama shoots clay targets, gun supports attack him. One of these is a good example of gun use that should be held up as an example of why guns can be safe and should be legal.

3) I appreciate that you all support the right to keep and use firearms. I do as well. The problem that I see is not AR-15s or any other weapon (a statement I have made above), but that the arguments continuously put forward do no good for that position. They may be things that firearms supporters agree with or believe, but if they are all the arguments available, you cannot do more than preach to the quire. Any citizen who wishes to define or defend any right needs to do so in a way that is objectivly true, logical, and legal.

A) Would firearms help in overcoming a tyranny? Yes. But is this a defining point of the second amendment? Many believe so, but this is certainly a single interpretation debated by many. It is not however what the Supreme Court said in Heller as the reason there are invidiual rights to firearms. Heller states that firearms are there for legal activities. Threatening the federal government is not legal. Does this mean the founding fathers did not want guns for this reason? No, but as Heller seems to question the validity of this argument, it is certainly problematic, when talking to those who do not already agree with you or arguing constitutionality. The other problem with this argument is that what any one person or a group thinks of a government is subjective. There is no specific cut off for tyranny, no metric or measurment. Arguing that the Obama administration is or that the Bush administration was tyrannical is not a legal defense and only serves to alienate other people.

B) The argument that the government cannot ban any weapons is something many suggest. Again, this does not reflect current laws that have been upheld. Additionally Heller argues that the government can ban weapons that are especially dangerous. Are assault weapons especially dangerous? Half the time gun supporters say yes (when they suggest they need them for defense), the remainder of the time they say no. So far, people responding seem reasonably happy to attack me personally, but no one seems to be able to put forward a response to this.

What everyone here seems perfectly able to do is attack people verbally. Myself, those I seem to agree with on this page, and politicians. But the reason I keep responding is simply this, for each response that appears, no one has actually sat down and put together a response to the problems that gun proponents face with their arguments. I am not here to say you shouldn't have AR-15s (though many seem to reduce my argument to that). I am here, because as much as people here want to say the need to defend their rights, even with violence, they are doing a poor job of it.
A) They frequently don't argue from the actual laws or interpretations upheld by the courts (ie Heller). This does not do good in convinceing anyone or protecting any rights in courts or legislatures.
B) In the arguments here I have seen a number of logical fallacies. If you agree with their logic or not, they are not legally binding nor do they gain support from those with different ideals.

Let's face facts. America loves guns. They love seeing them in movies, and it is difficult to fire one in sport and not enjoy it. But a majority of Americans support an assault weapon ban and many support greater restrictions on weapons. This could either be because they logically believe that weapons should be put under these restrictions. In which case gun supporters need to change their arguments to be logically coherent. Alternatively, they have personal and emotional investments against guns. In which case, you will not sway them with an argument that you need an AR-15 to shoot people.

If you want to convince someone who voted for Obama and Biden that they should support the second amendment, stand up and applaud their recent statements. Tell these people that Biden thinks guns are good for protection and Obama likes shooting sports. You will not win any hearts and minds by calling the people they support tyrants and threatening violence. Stop patting each other on the back for loving guns more, and face the fact that if you keep up with these arguments, people will grow in their dislike of guns. This is not something I would like to see happen.

Thaddeus Nelson,
Anything beyond simple black and white confuses them.
As is the usual response by the thin witted, if they don't understand you, they condemn you.
It's very much like the stone age tribe seeing a Polaroid camera for the first time...they think the camera has stolen their soul so they eat the one holding the camera.

William
Maybe they have backed themselves into a corner some democrats don't like. So what? If someone will dislike Obama or Biden for supporting even limited gun rights, they would have the same problem with any candidate or politician who did. As for looking cool, that's what all politicians do all the time. We don't have videos of Palin shooting animals because she wanted to share it with her friends on youtube. She thought it would help her appearance as a politician. It's kissing babies or shaking hands.

I don't even think we need to hide self defense. People do understand that. Just that if fans of these weapons want to argue they are good for defense, should wonder about using the exact arguments that suggest they would be guns to ban to prevent events like those in CT (I am not saying that they are. I am just saying that for the purpose of argument, saying it is harder for armed men to stop a person defending their home with an AR-15 also begs the argument that it is harder to stop a person with an AR-15 shooting children. Again, I am not making this argument, just that people who want AR-15s need to choose their reasons or end up sounding that way to the general public.)

Thad;

Many of us had advocated a rational approach for quite a while now. Usually followed by minuses, insults and ranting. Not necessarily in that order. After a while you just let the donkeys bray. You have to realize that some people, not all and certainly not most , but some on this site hear only what they want to hear. Some of the people on here who argue for the second amendment, never read the second amendment or the rest of the constitution for that matter. They only echo the talking points of what someone put in their ear, if they understand them or not.

Smart compromise (You know, its called bargaining) could have preserved everyones rights, including let guys who don’t hunt or target shoot have their toys and got this issue over with a long time ago and saved a bunch of lives in the process. But it continues to drag on and more stupid ineffective laws will be passed when we could have had smart well written laws actually written by people who know their way around a shooting range. You know, like the gun laws used to be (look it up). But neither side will let a good political crisis go to waste. Not when there is contributions to be gathered, money to be made, political points to be scored, people to be fooled and power to be exercised.

But mark my words. At some point, these people who manipulate other Americans for their own power and benefit and the sleazy lobbyists that got rich over needlessly spilled innocent blood will have to face St Peter. And I suspect on that judgement day, the old gent will take a very dim view of their perverting our democracy, creating an issue when there should have been none, risking lives needlessly and possibly degenerating the future of what Lincoln (and Jefferson and Reagan) called “The Last best hope of Earth”. I suspect their eternity will be very warm indeed.

Thad,
To your statement saying that this should be easy to overturn in court if what I said id valid, I reply 2 things a.) I have no desire to even get to the point of having this in court because I would rather crush an AWB in its early stages b.) One could argue that this matter has already been settled in court via the “common use” clause cited and reinforced in Heller. AR’s and other “assault weapons” are the most popular selling firearms since the Federal AWB expired. This is due to an increase in the number of sport shooters and the education of the public to an ARs numerous uses. I would hope this would be good enough to strike down any AWB should it be passed, but I have no faith in politicians from Illinois (and their appointed judges) when it comes to the 2nd amendment. You mention the previous AWB and it not being the end of the world for gun owners. When I think of the first AWB I think of the Justice Dept report stating that it had no effect on the rate of gun crime. In my opinion this means the AWB was a useless law that only restricted free citizens’ rights. However Feinstein views these results as proving the AWB was not strict enough. So they expand the ban this round. (Get ready for a slippery slope argument, and may I remind you we are not in a court of law, rather the court of public opinion, which may be even more critical in this fight) So in 10 years when the violent crime rate does not go down due to this ban the gun grabbers will shout “It didn’t work because we did not restrict enough things!!” And if the gun crime rate does go down (whether it be through societal changes, increases police funding, better rehab programs, etc) they will say “Look at how great the AWB worked. Now imagine how much good we can do with this next ban.” As for your statements about the effectiveness of these rifles and magazines in killing, they are no more or no less effective than any other firearm out there. The effectiveness of a product is not a valid reason for outlawing it. The VT shooting was committed with 10 round magazines and 2 handguns. People vilify “assault weapons” because right now the gun grabbers see this as the low hanging fruit. In response to your statement “The argument that has been put forward is that the safety issue is not a quantity argument but a quality argument (think driving 25mph for 8 hours a day is less dangerous than driving 150for 20 minutes).” This statement is a red herring and completely invalid in this argument. Driving a car on a PUBLIC roadway is a privilege, not a right, and has no legitimacy being argued to defend restricting what I can own and use on PRIVATE property. We do not preemptively ban cars that can go over the speed limit, since they have numerous uses on PRIVATE property. I shoot almost exclusively on PRIVATE property and being in the not so great state of MD the only way I am allowed to protect myself with a firearm is on private property. My last point is in response to your statement “a vast majority of Americans support an AWB.” No they don’t. I would like to see your references and I am sure they can be traced back to an anti gun funding source such as Johns Hopkins (Bloomberg) or the Brady bunch. As I’m sure you know (since you don’t seem uneducated), statistics can be manipulated and poll questions are often written to enhance the chances of a pre-determined outcome. First off calling Modern Sporting Rifles “Assault Weapons” is offensive and a misuse of the word assault weapon. Secondly I would need to see the polling size, poll questions, and so forth.
Before I end this post let me list the reasons AR’s are the best gun ever created. 3 gun matches, high power rifle matches, easily adjustable features for different sized users and users with disabilities, numerous caliber changes with ease, accurate, 300 blackout for hunting deer, and general fun target shooting.

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."

Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way. Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

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 a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson
It's liberty teeth and keystone under independence . From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed .to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority cannot take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770?’ and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This 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.

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I cannot tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

---------------------------------

Through regulations, taxation, inflation of the money supply, trade restrictions, and tethers on private associations, government itself is nothing but a massive drain on prosperity. The situation has become deeply dangerous for the future of freedom in America, with young people unable to find jobs, opportunities being destroyed in sector after sector, banks and corporations living on the dole, and so many regulations that we are living under something nearly as egregious as Soviet-style central planning.

Trapper
While that is certainly a popular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it isn't the only one.

Also, if you sit down and read the constitution, rebellion and taking arms up against the government are treason (Articles 1 and 3).

Finally, while it is very easy to think of the government as a lot of faceless individuals , those would be peoples children and fathers. A fact that should be brought home for all of those who remember a rebellion against gun raids under Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

Nope, not Yale.

But the exact argument you are using for the Second Amendment, which many scholars do question, is the argument used by domestic terrorists (Also those used by Southerners in the Civil War to protect their property rights).

Joe is a fool, as is his boss. I seen this anti-gun crap happening since 1968, to the point, Biden, Feinslim, Scumbag/Schumer, Oblamo, all can take a leap.

The 2nd amendment IS NOT about hunting, never was, people need to read Madison's reference to armed citizens in the federalist papers to understand the why of the 2nd amendment. It is for one purpose. to keep tyrants at bay. I will keep my semi's, an AR, and a Ruger Mini 30. Fienslim and her ilk can jump in the lake and we'll all be chill.

So Hoski, why are the Feds ordering huge quantities of ammo? My Senator, a Lib Dem, confirmed that the rumor about one non-police agency buying millions of .40 S&W rounds. I forget which agency, but you may recall. I posted Senator Cantwell's reponse on here somewhere a while back.

So are the Feds really hoarding ammo, too?

WAM,
You're right, the issue of some govt agencies buying ammo was discussed awhile back.
Simple answer was from time to time, like any other firearm carrying law enforcement agency they need to stay qualified.
Also sure as an avid waterfowler you realize the importance of practice.

More to the point, Ms. Palin's wacko tweets or facebook posting only serve to feed the conspiracy theorists paranoia...precisely the image we firearm owners don't need.
I suppose this is a prime example of Herr Petzel's comment concerning Ms. Palin being "a leading intellectual of our time, and a speaker whose gifts are equaled only by those of Winston Spencer Churchill."

I wondered if gov. ammo purchases might be linked to the frequently noted scarcity lately. Not that they are causing it, but that they are a preemptive measure so that there is not a shortage for law enforcement should they continue.