Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Supremes to Hear Second Amendment Case

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Gun Nuts
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

November 27, 2007

Supremes to Hear Second Amendment Case

By David E. Petzal and Phil Bourjaily

It's easy to see this case as a sort of Armageddon for the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment refers to an individual's rights it will be a huge help, but Sarah Brady and friends will not close up shop in despair. If the ruling is for militias, it will present problems for us, but probably not change a great deal all by itself.
      
I've seen some speculation that this development will cause the presidential candidates of both parties to define their positions on gun control. Satan and all his legions cannot bring this about. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying something clear and unambiguous about anything, much less gun control?
    
Gun control has about the same bearing on public safety as the TSA's confiscating family-sized tubes of toothpaste has on airline safety; it is the illusion rather than the real thing. Washington, D.C.'s police has been, for many years, one of the lamer departments in our major cities, and it might be helpful to remember this:

On April 30, 2001, a young woman named Chandra Levy went missing in Washington, D.C. A police search of Rock Creek Park failed to locate her remains, which were discovered on May 22, 2002 by a man looking for turtles. The police explained that they had not searched that part of the park because it was too remote. No suspect was ever named. Levy's is now considered a cold case. The killer is still at large.

Comments (197)

Top Rated
All Comments
from David P.curcione wrote 5 years 30 weeks ago

1. The number of F.F.L.s Licences- will decline too.In State of 188 Counties of State of Texas: the long star State!!!! When each month goes by to, there less Gun Dealers Retailers; of:smaller Businesses are" not avilable to buy a Gun is Scarceriest Diffuilt to get an Conceal Weapon too!!! It will be alot lower number of 3000 F.F.L.s Licences too!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David P.Curcione wrote 5 years 44 weeks ago

1. In Pennsylvania there is on total count of (2462) F.F.L.s Holder"s in 67 counties too. on 10/07/2007 A.D. Too!! 2.We need to,cut it by 1000 F.F.L.s cut dowm too!!! Type-01/o1a Licences & State Licences is included too!!! 2a.Solution is: There will be remaining count of F.F.L.s Licences is (1462)Retailer Gun Dealers Smaller Businesses is fewer numbers: beter controlls of the groups smaller Retailer Businesses Dealers. Type 01/01a Licences & State Licences numbers on Numbers Restricted in lagger Numbers too!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David P.Curcione wrote 5 years 45 weeks ago

1/Texas State has 3935 F.F.L.s Licences to in 188 Counties too. The Law enforcement should cut 2000 F.F.L.s Dealers are smaller one is way to many too. Solution: is There will be 1935 F.F.L.s Dealers Licences in the State to is Controlled in numbers to, agree!! Ths will cut off, the number of: Gun shop Breakings too. By Gangs Groups of Theifts of Guns of smaller Gun Stores to True too. Solution is: there is (1935 ) Gun Dealers of Type-01 too! Agree. It will cut the Gun Crimes down by (0.65)% Down too!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David P.Curcione wrote 5 years 45 weeks ago

1. Let"s say this: they should cut out ,about 0.50% out too! To-lower the Thiefts of stolen Firearms to; Cut out the numbers of Gun Stores too. By 50% cut off too! They Cut off 2000 smaller numbers down too!!! Solution is: the Answer is 1935 F.F.L.s Licences alone to;see how it stands too. If the crime rate reduced in shooting every 70 minutes too. To many Smaller Gun stores do Straw Gun sales undertable deals to Criminals Fellows Fellons Drugs Dealers , KingPin Whole sale Druge Dealers too. Ture!! This is why 2000 Gun dealers need to be down; sizes too! to Stop Homesides Killing by Gangs Groups, GS-13 Northern Mexico Groups Southern Mexico Groups too. They Growing Rapply in Numbers &Growing Fast too!! True!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 5 years 52 weeks ago

Hey Buddy, I'm cute as hell... why not meet me at the Ranger Station at Cheatham Wildlife Management Area in Ashland City Tennessee tomorrow at 4:30am for a Turkey hunt? I'll be there and I got one for ya freak. If nothing else I have some friends that will take you snipe hunting.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David P.Curcione wrote 6 years 2 hours ago

1. The State of Texas has,less of 3935 F.F.L.s Dealers Retailers on (10/07/2007 A.D. Too!! By the next month of ( 11/06/2009 A.D. Too. It will be about (3609 Type-01/01a, an N.F.A. Type-09 &F.F.L.s Licences in State of Texas,too!! They Still Declining alot of lack of Gun Buyers is not as many too!! Let"s Reduced the number of smaller Gun dealers Retailers now! The sales of Used Firearms is getting scarest and hard to find it,too!! True!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David P.Curcione wrote 6 years 2 hours ago

1. The State of Texas has,less of 3935 F.F.L.s Dealers Retailers on (10/07/2007 A.D. Too!! By the next month of ( 11/06/2009 A.D. Too. It will be about (3609 F.F.L.s Licences in State of Texas,too!! They Still Declining alot of lack of Gun Buyers is not as many too!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Visitor wrote 6 years 3 weeks ago

if you don`t want to receive this messages email me at abuse@bestlil.info with URL of your site and i'll take you off the list.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sturmgewehr Kid wrote 6 years 16 weeks ago

Buddy Hinton Sturmgewehr.com is a Queer Neo-Nazi that post on Nimbusters.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

I really don't know what would happen if the United States Supreme Court decided that this was not an individual right. Would they really tell us to turn in all our guns and expect that to happen? The best estimate I can dig up is 150,000,000 people are gun owners and there are well over 300,000,000 guns. The low side is 60,000,000 people with 200,000,000 guns. Sounds like a big problem for someone. I don't think the police could handle it but would the military go door to door ripping through people's houses searching? I just don't see it. It is illegal to grow marijuana and yet it is the number one cash crop in America... maybe we'll all be closet felons after this decision.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Mind bogglingly important, huh, WAM!?BubbaP.S. What does any of THIS have to do with the Supreme Court and D.C.?????????

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

BubbaThanks for setting me straight on the Ralphburger/Whataburger difference!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Well Alamo, guess maybe you might have seen at least one east Texas sunrise!Mention Bill Bradley, most folks think basketball. My mind goes immediately to a Philadelphia Eagle All-Pro Free Safety! But nobody remembers him! He absolutely loved it when they came to Dallas and won!I worked with his dad for many years, got several chances to talk with him. He is very modest and maintains his solitude.BubbaP.S. I was class of '69.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Hey Bubba,Bill Bradley ring a bell? Never saw him on the filed until he was playing for Royal. My uncle was class of 66, my dad, class of 58. My ol'man was career military, so we were in Palestine only between deployments. I ended up graduating from a MO highschool near a military base of course. Palestine is home- my folks still live there and most of my kin are close by.Fischerhunts-For now I am ensconced in Kentucky-gotta follow the money & benes. Was living in Bastrop county until two years ago. My wife actually still works for an outfit out of Austin, so we make frequent trips, she more than I, but I still get there enough to avoid severe Texas withdrawals.Gman-Thanks for the "Friday pass". I figure you know better than to suggest I would take pleasure in anyones increasing health care premiums. I know it's a mess. I just know the sure way to make anything a bigger mess is to involve the federal government.Gotta travel for a few. I'll check on y'all in a few days.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Just remember folks an East Texas meal isn't complete unless there's Yalla-Pino's on the table. :-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Buckstopper:Thanks, I wasn't sure if I might have written something. I'm pretty sensitive about that because I do have a tremendous amount of respect for just about everyone that I've met down there. I buy all my GPS stuff out of Georgia. When there is SNAFU (often) its so nice to hear that Georgia drawl on the other end of the phone. Then I think that these guys gotta go out and practice with this stuff with Rattlesnakes, Copperheads and Water Moccasins! They invite me down there quite often but I always find a reason to say no.Actually, I think I have a real thick skin with personal criticism.where I lose it quick is when some moron puts something here that's simply untrue about either someone else in the blog or our country I don't suffer fools easily.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Hey Alamo,While I was out traipsing pointlessly up and down the Catskills yesterday, the mailman brought our health insurance premium for next year.Went up 17%, and is now more expensive than our mortgage. Figured you'd get a kick out of that! Time to do some HSA shopping I think.And while I was climbing the mountain, one of the guys rolled out of camp at 9:15, walked 750 yards into the woods, cut a fresh track and followed it into some laurels. Out of another part of the laurels, with no tracks whatsoever, he thinks he sees horns 20 yards away...hey, it is horns! Boom! 9 points. Never got out of its bed.All this for a grand total of 15 minutes' hunt. But he is one of the guys who hunts hard and high most the time, so he earned this "easy" one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

WMAAlamo claims to be "from" P'tine, Tex. I am a native of P'tine.Ralph's was a hometown legend. There were "hamburgers" and if you were really hungry, "Ralphburgers"! AND, they were the ultimate, grease dripping off your elbow, mustard in the corner of your mouth, onion breath dispensing concoctions that would make What-a-booger blush in shame!Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

SAI probably could have said that better! I think my train of thought went something like this: While Gun Control is important, there are other issues that are just as important. What good is a fine deer rifle if you can't buy the gas to go hunting, or if you can't afford the hunting license. The Islamo-Fascists want world domination. If they continue to pursue this goal, hunting and sport shooting will play a minor role in our existence. What amazes me is that candidates who think like I do on these issues also think like I do on 2A.I just want everyone to think before they vote! Even if someone thinks of me as "a gun nut" please look at the candidates that I support for there overall views on the other issues.Thanks,YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

YooperI agree with you that we have multiple issues to concern ourselves with this election (as with any in my memory) but I can not agree that 2A Rights are less important. The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of our Democracy; all legislation is supposed to align to that cornerstone just as all the walls of a building are to align with its physical cornerstone. Recent years have seen an erosion (gradual at first now more rapid) of many of the Rights our forefathers fought and died for; just turn your TV on to the CourtTV channel and watch all the ways Rights are violated.SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FISCHERHUNTS wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Alamo,I'm in N BexarBout u

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

yooperjack,I did not mean include you as a south basher. I think your one of us. I'll drink a Makers Mark with you over a campfire in the UP anytime.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

I thought everyone in South Texas fed on Whataburger's? What's a Ralph burger?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Buddy Hinton Sturmgewher wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Any cute guys on this board?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

And for of the people who posted above, that hunting isn't necessary, remember, Grandma might still be with us had there been Reindeer hunting seasons at the North Pole!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Hey! Good news! According to Gallup Poll, I'm not crazy! This diagnosis was made by my wife on many occasions over the past 35 years. Unfortunately the article didn't say whether you have to actually join the GOP or just vote that way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Buddy Hinton Sturmgewher wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

It never ceases to amaze that the "girliest" of men among us, those who send others to fight illegal wars but who did everything in their rich daddy's power to avoid fighting in one themselves and, those who make their living sitting on their fat asses endorsing the former chicken-shits and otherwise mouthing off, are the first ones to point a finger at someone else for not being as "manly" as they imagine themselves to be. If these idiots are so manly, why aren't they out loading trucks, raking concrete and installing iron on high-rises?Sexual ignorance and repression has, over millenia created mindsets and monsters that tend towards various perverse expressions.Take the Catholic church and it's penchant for pedophilic priests.The exterminition of females primarily, as "witches" during the Middle Ages? Recently, Amish girls were murdered, the little boys spared. The Christian community lauded the Amish for showing the world, "dignity", by "forgiving" the murderer for killing little girls. Little was said about the gender-defined targets, or why he targeted them. What about Hitler, our favorite Christian? One shining example of "righteousness", and "manliness", and "power". One of most reliable monster- mindsets is the American-style, bland accessment of females as (secondary), sex-objectified, or politically or financially "profitable" to males, and thus also expendable, entities. We are told, that it is the "proper role" of females to support males. For carrying on the "bloodline" for "breeding". Males over the world are considered more "valuable", and, this is the sad lie. The "provocative, deceitful female " has been identified as causal; origin of everything that can be victimized without consequence. Bought and sold. Enslaved. Chattle. But mostly brainwashed. Pity that. Maybe Emily jilted or ignored Cho Seung-Ho? He wasn"t getting any, no doubt. Neither was Hitler. The language of beauty; of peace; of equality as "persons"and the culture that supports these concepts...will perhaps flourish again. We do not yet know when or where.If Cho Seung-Hui had not been unreasonably fearful, had used common sense and not had a gun, a beautiful young man would still be alive. There are too many Cho Seung-Hui out there too many little people of limited social skills, limited practical intelligence and limited conscience who not only fail to think before they act but refuse to take responsibility for their actions.Our Constitution does not give us rights without responsibility, so where is the personal responsibility in this?We have the NRA to thank not only for the deletion of personal responsibility from the equation, but for all the people who will die as the result.Comrade Cho, through his glorious sacrifice, has blazed the trail for the final downfall of decadent American capitalism! The running dog plutocrats of Wall Street and Washington rightly quake in fear at the imminent triumph of socialism! The inevitable outcome of the historical dialectic will be the slaughter of the parasitic capitalists followed by the establishment of a socialistic paradise where such basic needs as food and medecine will be freely and easily available to the proletariot. Arise, my American brothers! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Wulf wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Ellis Island is about New Yorkers, and slums, and street gangs, and organized crime. Yeah, they came in as legals, but they jacked up the crime rate like mad.Some day they'll put up a monument to the border jumpers who slip in the country, drive drunk killing our kids, molest our children, go on our welfare, ruin our schools and clog our hospitals. The monument to them should go to the good folks who slip across for a better life through working, not the ones who came here nudged out by the Mexican Federales!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Hey Alamo,If you have ever eaten a Ralph burger, then you are truly from the Holy City!If you can remember who (QB) led the "Wildcats" to the '65 State Championship, you can claim Palestine!This is a test! Where was Ralph's and who was the QB?To find a truly magnificent "blues guitarist", one must only travel to West, Texas. Willie played country because it made him money, his real love is blues.Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard C. wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Is the 2nd Amendment an individual right? Or a collective right? Should international treaties include a right to bear arms?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1955 Peterbilt 351 wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

am not a Troll......Show me some proof Buddy Hinton is a well known troll all over the net...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dana wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Here's all the proof you'll need!http://nimbusters.org/forum/read.php?board=8&id=420971"I am not a Troll......Show me some proof "

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from KJ wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

OK - buy me a LaBlatt Blue and I'll drink it. And smile. And belch. Then buy me another. Then you can go away.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Donny wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I am not a Troll......Show me some proofhttp://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/general.cgi?read=52866

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from KJ wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I like LaBlatts.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I never was really that much into blues but when I started researching my favorite artists, most of them got their start in blues bands. Now I want to hear some of those bands live but most of the greats are dead.Anyway, I generally drink LaBatt Blue (not light), but frankly, I can't tell the difference between any of the full bodied beers. One thing nice about the Canadian beer is that beer drinking in Canada is apparently causing global warming and its a bit cold here in the U.P. (8 deg F).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I seen them typos over yonder, Alamo, but it's Friday afternoon, so you get a pass today.All this Texas blues talk is bringin' me back. One night back in Po-town, Albert Collins was playing the famous Chance club (the place where the Police played to 6 paying customers just before Roxanne blew 'em up). And Guitar Jr Johnson was playing a smaller club a mile away. After Guitar Jr's set, the guys running that show drove him over to The Chance, he got up there with Albert, and the place never closed up until 6 AM.And I got paid to hang out like that...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Agreed Mark-1, Freddie King was one of the greats. Vaughn frequently said Freddie was his greatest influence, and when ever I heard him play "Hideaway" he always acknowleged F. King. I wish he'd lived long enough for me to hear him in person.Yeah Johnny & Edgar are east Texas swamp rats. My family is from Palestine, TX so we're more of the same. Texas has a great tradition with the blues, from Blind Lemon Jefferson and Albert Collins, to Billy Gibbons.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Lots of great musicians out of east Texas. Stevie Ray and Jimmy are certainly both great Austin people. I understand Johnny Winter is from Beaumont. SRV had more commercial appeal, but I thought he borrowed real heavy from Albert King on his slow numbers. Jimmy Vaughn struck me as more “studied” and original.I think of all the great bluesmen and players out of Texas none can compare to Freddie King of Gilmer. I don’t know how any guitar player can be a pop player without studying Freddie King.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Visitor wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I saw SRV in concert in Pittsburgh about a week before he died. I have always counted it as a blessing that I got to hear him live.I still have the T-shirt I bought that night.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Little Wing?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Well Gman, we have even more in common. Dr. Ralph, your wife has impeccable taste.I saw Stevie when I was a lad in 81 at Clifford Antoine's, then several times subsequent to that. In the "pre Montreaux" days he was a shy kid, but an enormous talent. Voodoo Chile is classic, but I'm a "Texas Flood" man. Do you know "Life Without You"? There's a song that will send a chill.His brother Jimmy (of Fabulous Thunderbird fame) still plays Austin on occasion, and he is also a great axe man. Back in the day Austin was a great place to see legends; Albert King, Clarence Brown, the Winter brothers. Even today there's a lot of talented musicians plying their trade in Austin.Asutin is a great place, an island of blue floating in a sea of red politically. With a few exceptions though the lefties are pretty friendly (it helps to have them surrounded!). Got into a big pissin' match with Molly Ivins (RIP) there once; Honest-to-God Loon Jim Hightower was her backup. Now that was fun.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Funny, I couldn't connect SRV. I always thought of him as Wisconsin, but I think that's where the crash occurred.I hadn't heard him called that since,1990?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Don't get me started on Austin, Alamo! One of my favorite T-shirts is the famous "Keep Austin Weird" shirt, which my wife got me.Back in the day, before I made my living poking around the excitement of telecommunications and health policy, I was a rock critic...and without doubt, one of the most profound music experiences I ever had was when SRV made his first small club tour in '83. The man made chills run down my spine when he played "Voodoo Chile," and that was the only time in 10 years of being paid to listen to music that happened.Ironically enough, if you know Austin music very well, the name Terry Lickona might ring a bell. He's the producer of Austin City Limits. He and I also grew up about 5 years apart in the same town; Poughkeepsie, NY. When SRV's copter went down, I spent an hour on the phone with terry, who told me all these great Stevie Ray stories.So yeah, I'm good for Austin one of these days.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alamo:Its worth a try!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from KJ wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Sign me up, Alamo.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Emmanual:While I believe that nuclear armament is the most illogical concept ever devised by mankind, the statement above makes nuclear arms logical.THE GOP/CNN debate the other night was a debate putting the GOP against Hillary. Most of the questions asked were questions that would tend to show all of the GOP candidates poorly with respect to Mrs. Clinton.Truth be known, there are probably 6 issues more important to a candidate than 2A. Taxes, Energy independence, Security from foreign terrorists, security from domestic terrorists, immigration, hell, I could go on forever. But the sad fact for Mrs. Clinton is that she loses on every issue!I would rate homeland security as the primary issue when I vote next year. I believe that 2A is an integral part of homeland security, at least from domestic terrorism.With news outlets like CNN spewing propaganda for one candidate, were going to have to learn to read "the stitch on the fastball" so we can make inteligent choices next fall.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Make mine a Coors and not that silver bullet crap... if I want light it'll be a Hornady Light Magnum. Alamo I figured you'd be a Lone Star man. And I thought you were kidding but I just googled SRV monument and there it is. My wife's in love with the boy but I'm kinda partial to Jimmy Page.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Fichhunts, KJ, Yooper-I'm down with the cold beer- make mine a Shiner Bock. I'd love to see the U.P. and give those big yankee bucks a whirl.My alternate location would be the hill or brush country of SW Texas. And the music out of Austin (the best launching pad for a hill country expedition) is pure blues.It is required to drink at cold beaded Shiner at the foot of SRV's monument before any serious undertaking.And I think Gman would enjoy an Austin excursion as well. Wild, carefree libs may be observed in their natural habitat-moonbattery personified.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Donny wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Vote Hillary Clinton for freedom!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

SLAnother one pulling stuff from his pooper! The Second Amendment is not the most vague! It is short and to the point! In the context of the Bill of Rights there is no ambiguity, it is an INDIVIDUAL right! As I have said before; no sovereign government ever had to give itself the right to arm its militia.SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Albert Sand wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dave I coul;d not agree with you more on the answer to your post of Nov 28th at 10:32, you get a second AMEN.On the laws being passed.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Emmanuel wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alright folks, let's see if I can't light this thread up again. Pasted below is a quote from a recent piece by Ron Rosenbaum, a very fancy New York writer. It seems that a key bit of reasoning that is standard among gun owners really dawned on him when he started contemplating what the world would be like if we were to ban the ultimate "arms" -- nuclear arms."In other words, I hate to say it this way, but if nuclear arms are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear arms. Even gun-control advocates, and I am one, don't believe that the abolition of all guns is possible or necessarily desirable. An outlaw with a gun can rob a gas station. If nukes are outlawed, an outlaw with nukes can rule or destroy the world, or blackmail it at the very least. Do we want a world where the only nondisarmed nuclear power is al-Qaida? What's to prevent such an outcome in the abolitionist scheme?"What ch'yall think?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tom wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Let's just hope that ol' pumpkinlegs Clinton doesn't become president. Otherwise I'm gonna have to bury my guns outback!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ron in WY wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Pity the poor ewes!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Boy that would be great! I could do the pub with Motown I could do a picnic or something else outdoors with Sam Adams (except in bug season). The only problem with fine wine is when I quit drinking wine, Boone's Farm was the hot brand.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drager wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Do you support independence for Dixie? Are you fed up with the attacks on your heritage and culture?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from KJ wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Fischhunts, I'll take you up on that one. I'm strictly a beer or wine man these days, but an ice cold Sam Adams always goes down good. And in the spirit of this topic, we could find a bar someplace playing the Supremes (or some other Motown tunes). Hopefully there would be a few nice shoulder mounts on the wall. Otherwise, a Sam Adams by the campfire in say, the U.P. during deer season might work, eh Yooper?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I just have to sound off on this North vs. South thing, having been on both sides of the aisle. I grew up in Indiana and we told jokes about how we had the largest zoo in the world. We just fenced in Kentucky and Tennessee. What's an Alabama virgin? A ten year old that can out run all her brothers and cousins. Then I moved down south and I wasn't a Yankee. I was a damn Yankee and no way in hell was I going to take out any respectable Southern Belle. People would not do business with me and I was truly aware of how bad it must be to be black. Now my accent is so thick people automatically assume I'm some sort of inbred toothless half wit when they speak to me on the phone... We're all Americans black, white, brown, yellow, north, south, east and left coast. It's been 150 years, come on folks.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I wasn't condemning them, Alamo. The issue was truly the baby facing Solomon...and I doubt the Union would have happened at all had the compromises not been made as they were.And even though I hail from old, old, old New England Puritan stock, I have never jumped on the bandwagon of those who singled out the South as a singular evil as slavery was dealt with in the Western world in the 19th century. Perhaps the most cataclysmic end of slavery came here, but it was truly a global evil..and it ain't gone yet from many places.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Fischhunts:I'd like that if we could pull that off. Logistically, its probably impossible.Gman, Alamo:I totally agree and said above that the Civil War was the greatest tragedy in our history. Ever since I sstarted looking at the U.S. Constitution, I wonder now if President Lincoln's efforts to preserve the union were in fact legal? I realize its a moot point now, but I often wonder what the result would have been had we agreed to separate?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Gman,Your point is well taken, but I still contend that the general tone of the founding documents made slavery untenable as an institution long term. Witness the deeply emotional struggles of Jefferson and his absolute refusal to change "All men.." despite considerable pressure to do so. Today the conudrum of slave holders whose words and compositions reveal a deep revulsion for slavery are hard for the 21st century mind to fathom. It for me is difficult to condemn those who struggled with that atrocity in the 18th century.Agreed that the civil war was the greatest of tragedies, but it also says much for this country that our ancestors were willing to engage in that awful undertaking.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alamo,Gotta disagree on the Constitution laying the groundwork for abolition. In fact, the compromises the convention made to accommodate slavery in order to create the Union led to the Civil War, not abolition.The 3/5 clause alone gave the slave states power far beyond the votes in Congress their free population merited. To whit, and I take this from David Stewart's "Summer of 1787:""The 3/5 ratio gave slave states fourteen extra seats in the House in 1793, 27 add'l seats in 1812, and 25 add'l seats in 1833. Those extra votes meant that when crises erupted over slavery in 1820, 1850 and 1856, slave owners in positions of power ensured that the political system did not challenge human bondage."Take that as you will, but I think the most unfortunate part of the ending of slavery in the US was that elsewhere, involuntary servitude ended much more peacefully in the mid- to late-1800s. Why we ended up killing so many of our own is one of the great tragedies of history.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chev James wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

If you would-be gun grabbers don't like the Second Amendment, then change it! See if you can muster the necessary support for a Constitutional amendment. Just DON'T be disingenuous and claim that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to "the people," because it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It didn't say militia members or soldiers--it said "the people." Once you claim the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says, you lose ALL credibility with us because you are now guilty of "double-speak," i.e., changing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences at will to suit your own agenda. By your logic that only the "militia" have the right to keep and bear arms, you are saying the equivalent that "freedom of religion" belongs only to military chaplains, and that "freedom of the press" belongs only to the government. You want to change the Constitution? There's a way to do just that--but you won't succeed in trying to deceive us with tortuously twisted arguments.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rusty In Missouri wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Too say that this is a deep felt issue appears to be an understatement. There has been more printed in this blog than may come from the courts. I commend many of you for your well written statements and all of you for your contributions. This is how this country started and hopefully how it will remain; through debate of issues important to us. The first amendment in action. Once again thank you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from joe anderson wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

the big secret of constitotionis the first 3 words until we all quit being sheep get aspine take up arms and send a cristil clear message to all goverment oficials that they work for us and it isnt there decisions to make without our permission will we get the results we want its time to put em in there place and take our country back give me liberty or give me death ."p.h."

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Fischhunts wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alamo, Yuperjack, KJ,I'd like to buy you guys a drink someday. Your sentiments are well written and I'd be proud to know you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shaky wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

To Bob&Kathy Owens; that is very informative, and I have printed it out. Be assured, I will use that information often, until all my liberal,gun grabber aquaintenances are well aware of whom their champions actually sprang from.On a more serious note, I haven't stopped laughing 20min after reading that post. THANKS FOR MAKING MY DAY.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Fischerhunts wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

U-tube Debate?3500? Vidieo questions were sent in and CNN filtered them. No wonder we got the questions they got. This was very well set up by the Clinton News Network to show how crazy those "GUN NUTS" are. I thought the candidates handled it very well.gmanLets examine the 1st amendment. Why is it that all you libs want to reinstated the "Fairness Doctrine"? Doesn't that fly in the face of the 1stA?If that F.D. becomes law all of these blogs go away. Talk about you're Tyranical Gov. By the way the term "Figures don't lie but Liars always figure" applies to you and most of the democratic candidates.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

After all, when criminals are being prosecuted or in the pre-trial phase in this country, lawyers for both sides often and almost certainly will bring up past incidents of wrong-doing; and attempt to correlate them to the present case. We all know they will debate/argue for days over the pertinence of these past acts, and their legitimacy, as to relevancy with the case at hand; as well as character.But, I would say the founding fathers left it to us to decide when or if we ever needed to disarm ourselves. Or whetehr or not we should keep guns at our sides forever. I would say Alamo is correct in that they certainly understood human nature to the point of being able to predict alot of what is going on today, in many facets of life. Human nature is pretty easy to predict in that way.Rats in a cage.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

SL,Your point is partly well taken.The logic of; well if they were wrong on this one, they COULD be wrong on that one, is somewhat valid, though in this case, a long-shot at best. It is also weak.I think that sort of thinking in general is good though; to look at the issues at hand and think outside the box. But to say if some of them owned slaves or thought of women or minorities as less than equal, then that must mean they were wrong on the 2nd, is just plain argumentative.Alamo,I don't really think he meant to berate that document we all hold dear, I think he just wanted to reason that if one man or men make mistakes, just like all other men, we have to allow that they could make other mistakes, though I side with you on this one.Also, I know he said he, "laughs at those who hold the founding.....", but please remember tact.You are far too intelligent to start this again.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from KJ wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

The first amendment protects many things, first of which is the freedom of religion, which is essentially the freedom to think. The other clauses in that amendment protect the right to express those thoughts. The second amendment protects the first, so to say. These are absolutely necessary to a free society.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

For all of you that believe that that 2A is flawed. Can you honestly believe that the First Amendment works after last night's GOP debate?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

SL-You demonstrate your lack of understanding with a most captivating naivete.While I would agree that no framer could project the state of society, they most certainly fashioned a document that correctly estimated the nature of man.The natural right of a person to defend themselves and their families from those who would do them harm, singly or collectively, will never be anachronistic.The great and sacred document you denigrate in fact laid the groundwork for the abolishment of slavery here, long before the practice was defunct in Africa or the Middle East.The founders you disdain were certainly flawed men, though demonstrably many of them anguished over the millenia old slavery issue. Regardless of your preciously facile conception of those men and their work, they authored the two most earth shakingly important documents extant. They forever changed human history for the better. Remarkably around the world the Delaration and the Constitution are regarded as the most important thoughts of the rights of man and the obligations of government ever codified. Sadly, it is apparent that some in this country are either too blind or too stupid to realize their good fortune.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Bob and Kathy Owens:How in the hell did you ever dig that up? Thats interesting!SLYou underrate the Founding Fathers. They prayed a lot so that they could draft a document that would hold the country together, and weather any developments that occurred.Their payers were answered! The U.S. Constitution has provisions in it for amending this document! These changes to the Constitution are called amendments!If you don't like 2A, amend the Constitution so that this amendment is repealed. It doesn't take rocket science to figure this out. You might have a potential lawsuit against your learning institutions also. Apparently your teachers were lax.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob & Kathy Owens wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Many of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, almost exactly 60 years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object UFO)with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell , New Mexico . This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and other federal Agencies and organizations.However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of March 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:Albert A. Gore, Jr.Hillary RodhamJohn F. KerryWilliam J. ClintonHoward DeanNancy PelosiDianne FeinsteinCharles E. SchumerBarbara BoxerSee what happens when aliens breed with sheep? I certainly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you. It did for meCheck out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SL wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

For those who claim that even some liberal legal scholars side with the 2nd amendment, why then do other conservative ones like Bork have their reservations about it? The real facts are that the amendment is by far the most vague of all. I laugh at those who hold the founding fathers up on somekind of holy pedestal and think that they had the foresight to know what a society would be like 200 plus years into the future with any of the laws they enacted. If they are to be put up on pedestals for enacting such a great individual and human right as the 2nd amendment, many of you patriots should also be condemning them vigorously for being the slaveowners that most of them were. Of course, I wouldn't expect any of these patriots to do so for various and also obvious reasons. If we are to consider their philosophies about slavery to be outdated and flat out wrong in this modern world, why couldn't someone have a valid claim that their opinions on gun-ownership could be equally as flawed???

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Buckstopper:I don't think any of us intended to slur anyone in the South. If it wasn't for you guys down there, the rest of us in "Flyover Land" would be in deep doggie doodoo right now. What's saved us are conservatives from the South, both Dem and Rep.When I was in the service, it seemed like most of the guys were from the South. Also, there weren't any freaky people from down there. Pretty much all normal guys. I'm sorry that you are offended, that that war happened and people will make reference to it. I for one believe that its by far the saddest period in our history.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dave Petzal:Thank you for making thisforum available to us. Apparently, we need this!We've been discussing the Second Amendment, and flushed out a lot of Kooks. I watched the GOP debate on CNN last night and was aghast. Someone who was portrayed as one of us sent in a video question where he was thrown a shotgun! Duncan Hunter, in his response to the 2A question, admonished the man for his careless handling of a firearm.The questions were supposed to come from undecided Republicans. Now it turns out that a lot of the questions were from Democratic plants. There were people portrayed as undecided from the Clinton Camp, the Obama Camp and the Edwards Camp. I believe four have been identified so far, and you know that you never catch them all.All in all, I thought the candidates did well. John McCain, Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee handled this forum very well and I would be comfortable voting for any of the three. I thought Fred Thompson seemed distracted. Rudy and Mitt used their time to nail each other.I am very upset that the First Amendment is being abused. Freedom means responsibility! While we have a free press, we certainly don't have a responsible press.My hat's off to all the GOP candidates who braved enemy territory last night. They did well!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Hillary Fan - One word for you "Myanmar" you are right we don't see dozens or hundreds gunned down there; because the despotic thugs running the country shoot the media as well as the monks!Tobes et al. you are pulling numbers out of your asses! Simply put there are no credible statistics which verify a decline in any sort of crime after a gun ban or restriction! None! Truth be told those states with the least restrictive gun laws tend to have lower violent crime rates than the states with the more restrictive gun laws. Yes I know you will cite Arizona as having few restrictions and relatively high violent crime but most of that crime is gang and or drug related; how many gangs have lined up to 'Stack Arms' where laws have been passed to disarm them?? None, repeat NONE!SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from retired waycar rider wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dave, out here in the high plains of NE-- where we don't seen to have any trouble with the 2nd ammendent,we finally got a concealed carry law, but, we've always been able to carry a gun --pistol or long gun around with us as long as it was in plain sight, we can still shoot people that come into our house to do us wrong, but now, he greed of some large companies, has caused the invasion of wetbacks from south of the border to work for cheap wages. the federal goverment doesn't want to guard our borders, to keep this threat out of the country--in a couple of generations these people (who won't learn to speak or write our language) will be here in enough numbers they will be running the whole middle of the united states. WATCH-OUT--when they are running things, they'll let anybody with cash, middle east or whatever get a toe-hold and then we'll be in deep shit. Right-now , I believe the 2nd ammendent business is just a smoke screen to cover up the rest of what I've out lined in my letter.---lots of career politicons aren't going to upset their apple card to help us. where would the Clintons be if they had to work for a living????? sorry about the wrong ramble--but I feel a little better now.... retired waycar rider

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Ralph, if Ron Paul were as strong on supporting individual rights nationwide on Roe v Wade as he is on most other things, he would have my vote today. Might still get it.Buckstopper, I only bring up the Recent Unpleasantness when somebody laments the passing of states' rights. As you say, we are supposed to have moved on.But both you and Ralph bring up an interesting point. We are obviously long past the point where states' rights is a viable overarching doctrine over federal power...but there are still, as we know, many states with right to carry laws. Just as many states have severely restricted abortion, other jurisdictions have enacted various firearms restrictions. If you live in one, and it is that important to you to live in a jurisdiction that encourages ubiquitous packing, move! That's the spirit of America. Or, hell just do what the crooks do, and buy a gun underground and hide it. If you need it for self-defense, no jury's gonna convict you of the really nasty charge; and when the government breaks down and you need it to fight tyranny, who's gonna put you in jail, anyway?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Yikes! I can't believe all the gun grabbers on this blog. They make Forrest Gump sound like Einstein, by the way, Enstein fled a gun grabbing goverment and we know how that turned out, at least those of us who actually studied history."A well regulated ..." in the day it was written means keep plenty of ball, flints and dry powder.If the NRA is a RNC front, how come they support a liberial Democrat congressman from southern state. Sadly the kook faction of the DNC is in control and the right to bear arms Dems are shouted down. The NRA can only be a one issue oriented organization. Anytime we "compromise" we lose. Never give an inch.Also, I am sick and tired of the stuck up Yankees who end any argument with a reference to any Civil War battle. Okay, you won, the world was better for it. We have moved on... so should you.SGT. York was a backwoods, bible believing, southern farmer. Yet he fought under the stars and stripes. Our troops today are from all parts of the country of every political persuasion, yet they still fight under the same flag. We are ALL AMERICANS! From Bangor to Birmingham, St. Pete to Seattle. The Bostonians started the Revolution, The Virginians finished it. Todays issues effect us all North and South, East and West. We all should rally around the 2nd Amendment, it ensures the rest will still be around.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ken wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Tobes is just plain insane and His facts ,aren't even close !Ken

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Strehlow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

To TB:I hope you are just playing 'devil's advocate' with your ranting. Because if you are an example of a sane person, then I want to be crazy. The idea that any gun club, that anybody, would rejoice over a Columbine is almost too atrocious to deserve a reply. I've met a few liberals who could be civil; you aren't one of them.I suspect you are too young to remember the sixties. I am old enough, alas, to remember them well. And in the sixties, in the US, God was kicked out of the public schools, a 'war on poverty' was enacted that destroyed the poor black family,X rated movies began to be shown in public theaters, and the drug culture was born (up to then, drugs were a back alley thing). And you blame guns for violence? It was your liberal heroes who did these things.Do you think guns create crime? Well, everybody in rural areas owns a gun; every farmer has one, every rancher. If guns cause gun violence, why isn't the country a war zone? Why don't wealthy lawyers build their mansions in the center of town rather than miles out in the sticks, if there are so many guns out there?We live in a country where in many cities, even a power outage results in every window within rock-throwing distance of the sidewalk being smashed, everything that can be carried off being taken. Our so-called civilization is more fragile than you may think.I lived through hurricanes Ivan and Katrina. The many "you loot- I shoot" signs I saw every place but New Orleans at least partially explains why only New Orleans was looted after those hurricanes. An ugly truth yes, but a truth nontheless.Why do crime rates drop in states that enact carry laws?Why is the murder rate so high in places that have draconian gun laws... Washington DC, for example?Here's the main point; EVEN IF I thought that a gun ban would reduce crime and violence (I don't), when I hear that noise at the back door late at night, or when my car breaks down at the wrong time of night in the wrong part of town, I want to have a gun. When I leave my family alone, I want them to be able to protect themselves. When the storms come and the power goes out, and there is no police response, I want an option. All the facts, all the statistics, favor our camp, but even if they didn't, I would want my family to have the right to protect itself. We are not statistics.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Nancy... or we could just elect Ron Paul.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coach ike wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

melvin:you say it is still relatively easy to purchase a gun these days. what state are you from? because in new jersey if you want to purchase a gun then you need a purchaser's firearm permit which requires a $35 fee and a background check by the state police---that could take 3-4 months. then when you do get your permit, you pay an additional fee the day you buy your gun for an instant background check. and while you are waiting for everything to clear, to purchase ammo for that gun you need to show identification (driver's lic or you guessed it--- firearm permit) and sign it out. now you talk to me about hipocrasy!!! yes it is in the constiution to bear arms but as a politician we will make your life absolutely miserable while doing it!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Boogs wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Ralph,If the tyrannical federal government really bothers you that much, why don'tcha sneak up on Ft Sumter again and send 'em a pop or two. They ain't expectin' it this time, so them wimpy federal parks folks'll run up the white flag quicker'n you can say Nathan Bedford Nottingham Forrest.See ya up on Little Round Top.Nancy

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chev.Jim wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I really hate to see crime blamed on gun owners and on NRA members in particular. We have crime because of one simple reason: we, as a society, are too soft on crime. I have been waiting for someone to explain to me why we don't lock up violent criminals and pedophiles forever. Don't talk to me about expense--house them in tents like our soldiers have had to stay in. Let them grow their own food. Here's the solution: you commit a violent crime, burglarize a home or molest a kid, then you're not coming out of the slammer until you die. You get rid of probation and parole and the associated bureaucracies, and you don't have to worry about sex offender lists--because ALL of the violent criminals and child molesters who've been convicted of these serious crimes are taken out of circulation forever. Then we can stop worrying about stupid "gun control" laws that liberals want because they're too "soft" to implement the policies described above. It's always easier to impose restrictions on lawabiding people than to take the tough measures against criminals. In a society, you get what you tolerate: if you tolerate crime, you'll have plenty of it. If you send the message that crime is not tolerated, you'll see it drop dramatically. You gun banners out there need to realize that the people in the NRA and other lawabiding people who own guns are NOT the problem, and we're sick of you trying to complicate our lives and take away our rights because you lack the intestinal fortitude to meet the real problems head on. Get serious and we can work together. First, you have to learn who the enemy is--and it's NOT us. You can rant and rave and legislate against us until hell freezes over, but it won't affect the crime rate one iota.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

TB... There is nothing "harmless" about driving a vehicle even in the safest of environments. It is just too risky. A stray turn could hit someone. As you can see, any reasonable person would support the banning of all automobiles. You're so pathetic it's not even funny...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shaky wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

H.F.; I don't know for sure what "drive"you crazy, but something certainly has

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

The second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America... one sentence 27 words. "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." When this was written the militia was every able-bodied free man between the ages of 15-45... there were laws requiring that plantation owners have sufficient powder and ammunition and that their pieces be fixt and compleate... You were required to own arms. This says a lot. Our states are no longer free. They are controlled by a tyrannical federal government that taxes the people and holds the money ransom to force states to do their will.Just the idea that a man must have a firearm at work to protect lawyers and judges and is not allowed one in his home to protect his wife and family makes me sick...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MidnightBanjo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Oops - should be a couple hundred years ago.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MidnightBanjo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

"The idea of a bunch of right-wing gun nuts armed with rifles and pistols going up against the world's most modern, best-equipped, best-trained army is so pathetically sad it's almost funny."Kinda like some rebels going against the Brits. a few hunders years ago - right?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MidnightBanjo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

From Alamo:"Most frightening of all was her attempts to circumvent the legislative process and utilize tort law and wildly capricious product liability suits to bankrupt the firearms and ammunition industries, along with subjecting individuals to insanely boundless personal injury litigation."Holly cow!~ Can you actually say that all in one breath?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from TB wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

There is nothing "harmless" about firing a deadly weapon in even the safest of environments. It is just too risky. A stray bullet could richochet and hit someone. As you can see, any reasonable person would support the banning of all guns. It is time we put these gun-toting extremists in jail where they belong! Trust me on this, I was a fundamentalist gun owner for several years. That's why when incidents like Columbine happen, gun clubs across the country get together and celebrate (very discreetly, of course) because there are that many less children in the world to meddle with their gun practices. I've seen it more times than I'd like to admit. I got out of the gun cult 3 years ago and would encourage others to do the same.It is clear to me that the 2nd amendment needs to be updated for the 21st century.Due to the Constitution's age and the present interpreting "arms" as guns and munitions.I want to stress that the Second Amendment is outdated.The idea of a bunch of right-wing gun nuts armed with rifles and pistols going up against the world's most modern, best-equipped, best-trained army is so pathetically sad it's almost funny.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tobes wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Are you fine folks going to follow the hysterical lead of the NRA and other gun-nut organizations or man up ? The government should ban all private ownership of guns, I say that you can't be too careful, and we must do this to protect the children. Citizens should not have the right to own firearms for self-protection, hunting, target shooting, and recreational purposes.The vast proportions of Americans recognize the reality that individuals do not have a legitimate need for guns.We must recognize that gun violence is a multi-faceted problem and requires a multi-faceted approach. We must recognize that as we sit idly by, that police officers and scores of innocent children are being injured or killed.They are weapons of war and are being adopted in large numbers by the most violent members of our society. Since we first enacted the ban in 1994, there was a 84% reduction in the crimes committed by these weapons. Congress must act to re-enact the Assault Weapons ban.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt from NM wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

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.Melvin, now we can all read it. Notice that it:A. Does not define militiaB. Require that any one belong to a milita.Actually it implies (and later case law states that all able bodied males between the ages of 15 and 41, IIRC, ARE the militia) that the people have the right to bear arms so there are armed citizens to BE the militia.Can you imagine Lexington and Concord if the patriots had to stand in line at the arms room? We'd still be waiting for the "Shot heard 'round the world" two hundred and thirty-odd years later.The "ya gotta belong to a milita" argument is akin to putting the egg back in the chicken, not determining which comes first.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from melvin wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Tobes! Here we are, a century later, and there are less gun control laws on the books today in many areas of the U.S. than there were in many parts of the Old West. Despite what today's gun nuts would have us believe, in most of the U.S., it is still remarkably easy to buy a gun these days.Of course, you'd never guess this was the case, if you listen to the NRA's hysterical propaganda. The NRA would have us believe that guns are already heavily regulated in America today and that the feds are on the verge of kicking in our doors and confiscating every last gun in the nation.However, if you take a close look at the specific issues that drives the NRA ballistic these days, you realize just how weak gun control laws are in this country.Take, for example, the NRA's furious, ongoing opposition to the Brady Bill. This modest legislation does nothing more than simply require a check on the backgrounds of gun buyers for criminal activity. And thanks to the NRA, the law is filled with enough loopholes to drive a truck through (such as the gun show loophole).It's hard to imagine any sane person opposing the Brady Bill. But the NRA took up the case and raised such a hysterical fuss that one might have guessed that the law called for nothing less than the repeal of the Second Amendment.Despite what the NRA would have us believe, controls on guns in America have actually weakened over the past quarter century. For example, when George W. Bush was Texas governor, he signed a "concealed-carry law" at the NRA's bidding. When he did so, Texas joined 22 other states that since 1986 had made it legal to carry concealed weapons. Today, some 48 states allow some form of concealed carry.Bush also signed a bill denying Texas cities the ability to sue gun manufacturers (so much for his lip service to the idea that local entities ought to be able to conduct their affairs without meddling interference from state government).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Reeder wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Is it just me, or does it strike anyone else that some of the hysterical, wacked-out anti-gun sentiments being expressed by some of the posters to this site could not possibly be coming from anyone who actually owns guns or hunts? I'm willing to concede that a liberal gun owner might be willing to overlook the Democratic Party's near-monolithic support for restrictive gun laws because he or she supports everything else on the liberal agenda. I'm not a one-issue voter myself. On the other hand, some of the stuff I'm reading sounds more like an outright antipathy to guns and gun owners than it does anything else. Sounds to me like there are some rats in the woodwork.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Oh, Hillary Fan,Now you've done it. You've done gone and got a passel of fellas mad as hornets. See, if you're gonna be a lefty on this board, you gotta be nimble. And truth be told, in the countries wherein the tools of violence are confined to the authorities, it's the authorities who randomly shoot 70 or 40 or 20 people.So you're gonna get took to the woodshed for that. And then somebody's gonna talk about how the right to bear arms is really to stave off a tyrannical government - but I reckon mightily that, if me and a bunch of my lefty friends were behind one barricade with our shooting irons, defending our rights to getting a warrant before the tyrants wiretap us, or fighting to uphold a woman's right to an abortion, 99% of the fellas on this board would be shooting at us from the tyrants' side of the barricades. Because while a foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, when push comes to shove it ain't tyranny most these fellers don't like. It's liberals. And the world would be better off without us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"If you can't understand that phrase, you should sue the college and high school that you attended because you got screwed!Then again, I remember a few years ago when libs were trying to figure out the meaning of the word "is"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tobes wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I know that the NRA leadership is really not much more than a paranoid mouthpiece for racist republicans "Party of God" . Any hint of new gun policy and the gun-nuts go, uh, ballistic.he he. You know the values that Christ talked about? Helping the poor? Compassion and love? Turning the other cheek? Blessing the peacemakers? Well, none of that has anything to do with "Christianity" as the present-day Republicans understand the term. To them, somehow Christianity has something to do with repression, hatred of gays, bigotry, ignorance, and a general distrust of anyone who isn't a white Republican Protestant.The NRA gun nuts went ballistic when Eastwood's film was released. They claimed Eastwood was "inventing" history. When serious historians rose in Eastwood's defense to point out that many Old West towns did in fact have such policies, they failed to silence the NRA gun nuts who were upset that their John Wayne wet dream fantasies of the Old West were, in fact, bs.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hillary Fan wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

am sick of stories about guns, and how the blessed Founding Fathers wanted every little patriot baby to grow up with a Kentucky long-rifle over the mantle. It is a lie. It is a myth. The very idea is a concoction by people who want to believe something, regardless of the facts, and the fact that the lie has deep roots does not make it any more accurate.I am sick of stories about people who claim that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”You do not see 70+ people, or even 40, or 20 … or, (you get the picture) randomly gunned down in any of the countries where the tools of violence are confined to the authorities.Anyway, the point is I object to the way they flip flop on their arguments - refusing to get on board with important things, then wasting our time using the same arguments for irrelevant things. It's the hypocrisy that drive me crazy.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt from NM wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

If your opposition is to your own gun possession then I have no opposition to your opposition. When your opposition is to my possession that's when my opposition is in opposition to your opposition.Or as my sainted granny would say, "You tend to your knittin' and I'll tend to mine." That's what the Bill of Rights is all about.Welcome to the watch list. There are so many of us by now that they can never watch us all.Heheheheh

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tobes wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Owning a weapon is not a constitutional right if you don’t belong to a well-regulated militia. Why is it that most Gun Nuts Support Ron Paul but RP is curiously absent from the NRA website ? Sounds like the NRA is part of the machine .. sad Once we Dems confiscate your guns, we can demobilize your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chev Jim wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

In the Atlanta Journal Constitution today, there were articles by former Congressman Bob Barr, an NRA board member, and by Paul Helmke, who heads the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Barr ate Helmke's lunch. All Helmke could talk about was the need to pass "sensible" gun laws. Well, the D.C. ban wasn't sensible. It effectively disarmed all citizens of the District of Columbia. Let's say you don't like pit bulls--and I don't. However, if the Constitution says, "A well protected citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and walk pit bulls shall not be infringed," I cannot claim the right to ban pit bulls even though I personally despise them. The D.C. law was the equivalent of having you euthanize your pit bull and then cut it up into at least four pieces. It's very dangerous to "monkey" with the Constitution and claim it doesn't mean what it says because you think a portion is outmoded or shouldn't apply any more. If the Second Amendment applies only to "militias," then the First Amendment applies only to National Guard public information officers. Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't try to twist the Constitution to satisfy any liberal constituencies. Once you go down that path, there's no turning back. Yes, a lot of states and municipalities risk having unconstitutional laws overturned--and that is just as it should be.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from melvin wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

No one ever bothers to read the second amendment. It doesn’t say that all citizens have the right to bear arms. It says people can bear arms if they are a part of a well-regulated militia. I don’t know a single gun owner who belongs to a militia, much less a well-regulated one. All the gun nuts say they have a second amendment right to bear arms but they have never read the actual amendment, obviously. The people who twist the second amendment into something it isn’t are the same people who ignore the UN charter and maintain that the war in Iraq is a noble cause. Right wingers are scoff-laws who don’t give a damn about legal niceties.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coach ike wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

yes massachussetts!! it was on the 6pm cbs news. is that such a crock of bullshit or what? tell you what, have the politicians come to my house and take whats left of my manhood and just cut my testicles too while they are at it!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nathan wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Why are these gun nuts upset? The NRA has long associated itself with an imagined history of America in which those who love freedom always owned firearms. It’s nice to see that at least one of our Consitutional rights is being vigorously protected. Pity it’s this one.Actually, since many of us “Democrats” are probably on terrorist watch lists, and we may very well have to protect ourselves from Blackwater Warriors of God someday, I am actually rethinking some of my opposition to gun possession.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt from NM wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

People's Republic of Massachusetts?Home of the heros of the Cam Lo River and Chappaquidic Bridge?Surely you don't think they would pass a nanny law!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coach ike wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

this country is seriously going down the toilet fast. when is the last time a politician did something good for the country? uh how about....NEVER! when the hell is government going to fix the problems that exist instead of creating new ones that are constantly in everyone's business? when is a judge finally going to stop entertaining this bullshit and start putting the lawyers in their place? now massachussetts wants to create a ban on spanking your own child? what other problems do the politicians want to create?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I wish we could bet on this! I would pick "The court reverses the lower court's decision by a vote of 7-2" The dissenting Justices being Brier and Ginzburg, with Ginzburg writing a dissenting opinion. The Majority Opinion will be written by Chief Justice Roberts. The language of 2A is just too simple to be ignored and only 2 justices believe in "Constitutional Evolution"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Like I said way above, fellas; we're all just fartin' in a hurricane.Send Justice Kennedy a note if you feel it will do any good. Yellin' at me ain't gonna do any good. I have no power to do anything but annoy you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt from NM wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I think that people (especially the body politic) forget that the first ten amendments to the constitution, popularly known as the Bill of Rights, refer to rights granted to all men by "their Creator", not rights granted by the government. The BoR merely recognises those rights and guarantees that the government will never abridge them. (I think we all agree they ain't quite battin' a thousand.) Note that the 2dA mentions "free standing" militias. Not "state" or "National Guard" or "organized", but militias raised by the citizens, consisting of the citizenry. Hence those citizens must have an uninfringed source of arms.Certainly the case can be made that arms of the 18th century do not begin to equate to those of the 21st. No one can reasonably expect the average citizen to have access to, nor necessity for, tactical nuclear hand grenades or Ma Deuce rock and roll bullet launchers, but the personal protection of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are legitimate concerns of the individual. Thus personal posession of devices to accomplish said protection are needed, the need is recognised, and the prohibition of government to infringe upon said need is codified.It seems that the greater problem is the normal lack of necessity for the citizenry to be armed. Carrying a sidearm is a real PITA. (Been there, done that. Former Sky Marshal. Remember those?). So most people just think "So what, I don't have/carry a gun anyway." Un-used right is un-needed, right? By the same token, what percentage of the eligible electorate takes time to vote. Un-used/un-needed right, right? (As long as it ain't MY ox being gored!)As for the government's responsibility to protect the individual, there is none. The police are to protect "society as a whole" not the individual. Case law any number of times. As a previous correspondent said, "Cops are too heavy." Fortunately I live in an open carry/CCW must be permitted (after you are checked out and can prove you can hit what you aim at) state. Will I go through the nut roll to get my permit? Probably. Is the process an infringement? Probably. Is it an unreasonalbe infringement? Probably not. After all demonstrating that I'm not a substance abuser or felon is not all that bad. (Let's not go into the mentally deficient part. Questions have been raised from time to time, but nothing has ever been proven.) It's my right. I spent 18-1/2 years in uniform to defend it and I choose to exercise it.To quote a bumper sticker (source of much contemporary wisdom), "911 - Government Sponsored Dial-a-Prayer".

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve C wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Sorry, but Alamo’s comment also got me thinking again. I promise to stop after this (posting, not thinking).I use to discuss the 2nd Amendment with a very right-wing, pro-gun everything friend of mine. He took a far right view of guns being a right – no if, ands, or buts regardless of what the Supreme Court or anyone else would say now or in the future.When I conceded to his opinion (to humor him), I asked where he got his “right” to hunt. He smiled and came back, “The pursuit of happiness”.As far as any opinion of guns being the cause of any problems, I always remember the analogy: Guns are no more the cause of violent crime than a fork is responsible for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Hey Gman:I know that I have a lot to be thankful for, but if there is anything I'm lacking, its liberal friends! I'd like to meet the people that blame guns for all of our problems. Two cops were killed in Florida this A.M., after being run over by a car. Do we ban autos next?I associate liberalism with arrogance. Liberals believe that they can solve every problem with new laws. Mankind is not all that smart. Every new law that we enact has unforeseen consequences, whether the law deals with the environment, economics or social issues. I remember that this country once declared war on poverty. While there were many good results from this endeavor, many black scholars attribute this effort to the distruction of the family in black neighborhoods. This aspect has contributed more to crime than the gun hasIn short, I don't think that restricting gun ownership will have any positive results with respect to crime.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Damn, this so easy if you just open your eyes.The leading Constitutional scholar of the last 30 years (for better or worse) is Laurence Tribe. In his public comments he has lamented the existence of the Second Amendment because philisophically he favors government control if not outright confiscation of firearms. However he also realizes that any such act requires an abridgement of the Constitution. He doesn't like what the 2A says, but as a scholar, to preserve intellectual integrity, he must concede that the 2A guarantees an individual right.Second. No proponent of control or confiscation has EVER produced documents or records from the founders that support the collective right or militia argument. None. Conversely the wrtings of various founders and framers that support the individual's right to keep and bear arms are abundant and conspicuous. Not only do those precious records support the individual right argument, they are also very obvious when stating the motivation: To avert tyranny. Not so we may hunt, or even to protect ourselves from criminals (although self protection is mentioned), but ultimately they advocate a privately armed citizenry as a bulwark against governments inexorable propensity to oppress.Gman,Somehow your assurances that Hillary doesn't want to disarm me provide little comfort, given that she was the catalyst behind every effort of the Clinton administration to infringe on gun rights. Most frightening of all was her attempts to circumvent the legislative process and utilize tort law and wildly capricious product liability suits to bankrupt the firearms and ammunition industries, along with subjecting individuals to insanely boundless personal injury litigation.IF you are a liberal, and a gun rights advocate, reform your national party. But what you're selling won't be bought here.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Reeder wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Any fair and unbiased reading of the 2nd Amendment in context with contemporaneous debates and writings at the time of its adoption must lead to the inescapable conclusion that it, like the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, applies to individuals and not collective militias.On the other hand, as someone once astutely said, the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the current court veers from left to right depending on the whims of one or two justices. All the more reason to hold candidates' feet to the fire about their selection of judges.As for rural vs. city living, I grew up rural but worked in D.C. for five years. In rural Texas everyone had a gun, usually with them, and I never felt threatened. In D.C., every criminal has a gun and no one else has any means of protection at all. Even tear gas and pepper sprays are illegal. The police dept. there is abysmal, city government is dysfunctional and the crime rate is astonomical. Hardly a career criminal gets arrested and even fewer are convicted. I would have felt a helluva lot safer if everyone on the streets was armed to the teeth instead of being at the total mercy of criminals, virtually all of whom were armed. I'm just happy to be back home in Texas, where we value life enough to execute those who take it, and where the right of armed citizens to protect their lives and property is enshrined in the law, our state constitution and culture.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from carney wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

"...Armageddon for the 2nd Amendment"?The Armageddon scenario is this: Jesus shows up and the bad guys are dust! Revelation 19:11-21.Dave, I'd like it to be that easy for the 2nd Amendment but it probably won't be...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Steve C.,"After they looked around and stopped throwing up"Dude - that is absolutely astoundingly hilarious.Says this two-toothed, jack-eyed proud to be a barefooted hilljack RED-NECK from NC!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rusty In Missouri wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

One of the things I dislike is to explain and define myself but I will as the slings and arrows have struck. I am a life long hunter but also a scholar with strong opinions on both.The meaning of the Second Amendment is one of the most misunderstood and disputed among the entire Bill of Rights. The working is not clear as Mark pointed out.It declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Infringment is left to interruption which is one of my concerns and specifically does not address the right to bear arms outside of a well regulated militia. I also do not have a good feeling on a ruling by the courts.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

There's a lot of fear of liberals and thugs and politicians being expressed here, especially considering most of y'all are tough and resolute guys with guns.Yooper, I am a liberal and I don't want your gun unless it's one of those new T/C Icons in .308. Lemme know so I can have Hillary pick it up when she swings by your way. It's just a sweet-looking implement.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve C wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Mark's comment about our Forefathers intent got me thinking.Imagine if we could go back in time to get clarification on the 2nd Amendment. Or better yet, transport them to the future in their powered wigs and tail coats. After they looked around and stopped throwing up, I suspect they would tell us that the present situation wasn’t envisioned.The Constitution was adopted during a time significantly more emotional, threatening, and political than now. Yet cooler heads prevailed and it’s still a remarkably applicable document 220 years later. Let’s hope the Supreme Court follows their lead.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

The 2nd Amendment IS poorly written. I think it’s intentional as our founding fathers were just as spooked and politically two-faced on this issue as our present politicians are.Bad administration, but good politics. Deal with it, folks.Court Watch??? I think Kennedy [he’s an angry and disgusted man] will be the deciding vote affirming individual right/freedom on the 2nd Amendment, but he’ll give the States power to add qualifications and restrictions to said freedom/right.I reaffirm again, after all is said and done the Status Quo will prevail….even though its fun to try calling the shots…so to say.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Steve C:You are probably right. The two newest judges are strict contructionists and there is a majority of judges who are strong enough on individual rights to overturn that gun ban.Everyone:Please keep this thought in mind when you go to the polls next November. We had a SCOTUS ruling a couple of years ago where the high court referenced European Law when a decision was handed down. Would anyone in this discussion feel comfortable right now if all nine of these jurists were clones of Ruth Bader Ginzburg? If that were the case, I wouldn't be shopping for guns, I'd be selling them.Next time you go to church, please kneel and thank the lord for 200 voters in Florida in the year 2000.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve C wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

“…it is the illusion rather than the real thing”.That about sums it up.Any major decision by the Supreme Court will have little affect the pro-gun or anti-gun ranks. This is more an emotional issue and less a legal issue or even political issue. All of the laws, statistics, and evidence in the world isn’t going to sway enough people from their position to make a meaningful difference in who supports what.I personally don’t see a decision against gun owners. The economic and political fallout would be untenable for either party. It’s one of the few dominoes nobody wants to be the first to push over.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from PDKMF wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Bobby:You're in the wrong blog...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Rusty I won't be as polite as Yooper and beg to differ. I'll simply say you are wrong.The Second Amendment is most certainly clear in meaning and content. Only those who disagree with the intent of the 2A try and claim otherwise.Even traditional liberal anti-gun scholars have reached the conclusion that the 2A is an irrefutable individual right. Laurence Tribe of Harvard and Sanford Levinson of UT Law among others have angered anti-gun zealots by declaring this truth. Whatever their politics, God bless their intellectual honesty.The supporting historical evidence of the founders intent concerning the 2A is overwhelming. It can essentially be summed up by the declaration of Justice Joseph Story, veteran of the Revolution, professor of law at Harvard, and the youngest ever appointee to the SCOTUS: the Second Amendment is "The palladium of our liberties".

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dave P.Amen.Most of the politicians of all persuasions ARE politicians for three reasons:One, they are power hungry, self-aggrandizing A-holes.Two, they are so intelligent that they alone can solve the woes of the ignorant masses.Three, we are too stupid to manage our own affairs and they must do it for us.We should start on them as soon as we are done with the lawyers. Old Will was right.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dave Petzal wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

To Michael:Good question. The answer, I believe, is this:Legislators operate on the premise that if they enact laws, they will correct society's problems.If they enact laws and no one pays any attention/and or nothing is any different, it means that they, and what they do, are irrelevant.This is so terrifying that they keep passing laws, regardless.In recent years, Congress has become more and more irrelevant, which may be the reason that so many long-term Senators and Representatives are bailing out, realizing that they have accomplished nothing, and will accomplish nothing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Michael wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Had to sound off again, Dave.Where were the police when Chandra Levy was murdered?Where were the police when two small children were hacked to death in a rural California town by a dope-crazed lunatic (which the police shot several times when they finally arrived) because a local ordinance said all guns in a home had to be locked up so children would be safe. The teenage child who knew how to use a gun couldn't get to it. Any law enforcement officer worth carrying the badge will admit the police get there after the fact! The only people at the scene of a crime is the victim and the perpetrator. 99% of the time the only defense a person has is self-defense.Here in Texas last week a man observed two men breaking into his neighbor's house. He called the police who kept him on the phone asking stupid (but probably required by dept. policy) questions. He went outside, yelled at the two men (illegal immigrants) to stop. They came on his property in a threatening manner (eliminate a witness?) He shot them both. dead. The national media has had a field day with this one; I sincerely hope he is not indicted by a grand jury.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Rusty in Missouri:I beg to differ. There is a lot of historical data on 2A. The Founding Fathers knew that man is inherently corrupt. They prayed a lot when drafting all of the original documents. They did not want the country that they were starting to evolve into something tyranical. They knew that an armed populace would deter the tendency for tyranny. This is the primary reason why we have the Second Amendmant.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shaky wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Bobbi; I have been a member of the NRA for many years, I know hundreds of people who are also members. I haven't known a single one who has plotted or carried out a plan to shoot pre-schoolers, or anyone else.Actually, I am as insulted as Alamo, he just beat me to the reply, and is more aticulate, but I say this, If you are violently attacked and I am close by, I guarantee that you will be glad that the NRA has protected MY right to own, and carry a gun.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Michael wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dave,Why is it politicians (and some others) turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the irrevocable, unarguable fact that criminals will continue to acquire firearms despite any gun control law; these laws only affect the law-abiding citizen. "Criminal"- a person who has total disregard for the law- duh. Oh, well. I answered my own question when I said "politician" - one who makes promises they never intend to keep.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Not to insinuate that it's always a white guy moving into a mostly black neighborhood, but with the social situation the way it is in this country at present - that is usually the case.I did not intend to sound racist in the above post. I want to be clear on that regard.Many of my friends for years have been black guys, and I would have it no other way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I can tell you Clay.Because the crooks know the look of that guy, you know, that white dude that ain't gonna take shxt. He moves in with his guns, sits on the front porch for the first few weeks and watches.And they see him.They now he is marking them, marking their faces, where they live, who they run with, and what they do. They know he will act in a second if something is up, and very often, if they know he is armed; the streets clear just like you say.It's much the same on a basketball court, when you are the only white guy playing - and staying on the court. As I did for many years as stress relief after work; by myself at the courts with the best comp around.When you first show up at a new court - they're like hmmm - I wonder. Then you wait your turn - pick your team and play. Then you stick the wide open jumper, because nobody will guard you at first. You are white - they think you will either fumble the ball over or air-ball the shot. But you stick it. Then the first time you fake the jumper and drive - they wonder less. They may even smile. But not all of them. You will be tested. Then the first time you get checked and you check back.They wonder even less.Soon - your color matters not and you are just playing ball. Boundaries are set and the game has its rules imposed by those in the area - just like the neighborhood.They know there will be consequences if they act, and that is a deterrant.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Clay CooperYou hit the nail on the head. Virtually everyone who is for restrictions on gun ownership has some type of personal protection. They carry, have bodyguards, get police details assigned to themselves and family and live in places with elaborate security systems. Yet, they demand their citizens live in places that they can not or will not protect. Then they excacerbate the problem by voting for judges that are willing to let convicts out of prison after short prison sentences.How often do we watch on the news, where someone is arrested for a heinous crime, and that perp has a rap sheet with a table of contents. The commentators ask "What was that person doing on the street?" There was a caseon TV last night where a honeymooning couple in Seattle was murdered by a convict who was recently released after serving time for killing his mother. The judge felt he had paid his debt, but she was wrong. She is still alive but no one can bring that newlywed couple back!I can simplify this.1)Liberals want our guns.2)Liberals want as many felons on the streets as possible.3) Liberals want our votes so they can think about the problems caused by 1 and 2.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rusty In Missouri wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

jstreet,The 2nd Amendment is not clear in meaning or content. As far as any court making a clear ruling; I have my doubts.Most of the ranting that has been posted will be our biggest enemy. Ask any historian, coach or military officer and they will tell you once you have the opposing camp divided you have the victory. Our own division will be our end. Now I stand for the suffering the slings and arrows for these statements but I feel they are the truth; divided we fall.In the light of aphorism.Rusty

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Can somebody explain why, when I move into a neighborhood with break-ins’ and drive bys etc come to a screeching stop and kids start playing in the street because it was now safe for them?The Second Amendment is a individual right Second Amendment.This is the question that is NOT BEING ASKED!Question: What government entity is responsible for you and your family’s personnel safety?If they say no government entity is responsible for you and your family’s personnel safety and your forbidden to protect yourself I would open a class action lawsuit against that government entity and the State! It’s time to turn the tables and put the boots back on the right feet!!!Sure is funny that those Anti gun nuts carry and say we cannot! Sen. Barbra Boxer carries concealed weapon I hear.The left says you have free choice! Provided it’s the choice they give you and it’s final!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

People fear guns because of how criminals use them. Stricter gun laws will not affect criminal action or intent. This ruling is really about Washington D.C. and it's failings as a city to protect it's citizens. No one is allowed to own a handgun there yet it has the seventh highest murder rate in the country... is this explanation simple enough for the dumbocrats to understand that gun laws don't work and a free populace is an armed populace? Probably not...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

"Bobby" (Kennedy, Jr.?)How many NRA members do you know?Well let me tell you something about that demographic. I will admit that I don't have the statistics, only years and years of observation.The "average" NRA member is college educated, married, has children, gainfully employed, never had more than a traffic ticket, in the upper percentiles of income, and by all traditional measures a success.If you were to move into a new neighborhood, I doubt any single affiliation could assure you that the folks next door are decent, hard working, and law abiding more than NRA membership.The "hardline" of the NRA that the MSM and others assail is simply a response to the absolute determination of venemous activists to disarm these good citizens. Because of my NRA membership people like you "Bobby" try and paint me with an extremist brush, and I have every right to be pissed off about it. I will compare my personal attributes and contributions to this society, along with those of my family, or for that matter, my compatriots in the NRA with anyone. To label "us" as extremists is ignorant, insulting, and in the end feckless.The net result is millions like me telling our representatives and people like you- Never. We will not negotiate, we will not compromise.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dustin:The majority of gun owners in the US are not wild-eyed radical loonatics as you suppose, we are your banker, barber, baker, the gal-down-the-street. Perhaps a tad leaning to conservative values though some of the responders here are mighty liberal. Point is; do NOT lump us all in a heep with the very few individuals who carried out one of the worst acts of terrorism to date on our soil!Dani:The contributing factors to domestic violence are too numerous to list here and while you are right that some 'studies' have shown that the presence of weapons in those violent homes increases the severity of the abuse. One should note however that since 'Lautenberg' was passed the data indicate little to no change in recurrence patterns after mandated confiscation of weapons. The sad truth seems to be that until we make other steps to address the factors which are known to incite or increase domestic violence nothing will change.MattM:I doubt any of us believe that the Court will be so sweeping in ruling on this case as to dramatically affect concealed carry laws (either way). Branding those of us who would carry if legal as whackos just plays right into the hands of our enemy. Some of the most notorious serial killers in recent urban US history haven't used guns, because they didn't need to (no one else had guns).SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from semp wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

' ... a cop is too heavy'My yuck for today!Bless you SSGT Steele.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kentucky wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Those who sold us the Constitution swore up and down on a stack of Bibles that checks and balances would ensure that our limited and weak "federal" government (with rights retained by individuals and states) would NEVER pose a threat to our liberty. But even with Jefferson, the executive went off the deep end, and the temptations of those with power to both abuse and aggrandize it never end.We could use a little devolution of power, and a little greater local control.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Emmanual:You're probably right about the Libertarian Party, but so what. A third party candidate has a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected President. All a serious 3rd party candidate on the right will do is guarantee Hillary's election, which will result in more erosion of all of our rights.Dustin:I am somewhat conservative. I am also a Christian. I'm very patriotic. DON'T EVER LUMP ME IN WITH RADICAL GROUPS. We are hard working, tax paying people that enjoy hunting, shooting and reloading, but most of all spending time afield with our kids, grandkids and friends. This time is ecologically beneficial as it controls populations of wild animals and because we buy licenses, we fund a great deal of ecological research.If you can think of better ways to achieve these goals, fine, but name calling just doesn't cut it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bobby wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dear Dustin, It's perplexing that some of the these NRA fanatics are intelligent and possess high reading skills and all calling themselves patriots. Fundamentalist preachers and gun dealers rank among their leaders.Like all cults, this gaggle spreads bizarre talk. Meanwhile, right-to-bear-arms nuts aren't the only True Believers ready to kill and die for a NRA demented logic. Normal Americans can't comprehend , but it's increasingly clear that we can't escape the nightmares guns cause.The NRA sees itself as the supporter and defender of the holy cause to which is clings to a out dated Contstitution.The NRA thinks their cause is more important than the lives of preschool tots and people. To them, mass murder is justified to deliver their vengeful message. To the rest of us, it's madness that someone would make elaborate secret plans to massacre children as a public demonstration.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dustin wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Before I start talking about gun-nuts and gun-loons, I want to make my own position clear on the 2nd Amendment. I think the NRA and the even more extreme gun ,heavily armed loons , mostly fringe rightists in the country. (like whacky Religious militias) are all nuts.rogue gun dealers (ie- right-wing militia terrorists like the nut cases who blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building). NUTS! I wouldn't like to see another civil war or an insurrection.I think most people-- not counting religionist loons-- pretty much.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Emmanuel wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

"Just another democrat living in denial.."I'm unconvinced that either mainstream political parties give much of a d*** about the Second Amendment or the rest of the Bill of Rights. Very few folks who work for the government are in the business of declining or relinquishing power over our lives, no matter how sterling their intentions.There are plenty of Republicans who aren't particularly sympathetic to the concerns of gun owners. Mitt and Rudy come to mind.The only party I've found to be consistently, fully and unabashedly in support of gun rights is the Libertarian Party.If you're curious, many Libertarians also favor lightening tax burdens, dismantling the federal bureaucracy and generally getting Uncle Sam's nose out of your business.Before Ron Paul ran for president as a Republican, he ran as a Libertarian. His views on gun control reflect that.As for you boys who live in a city, I'm sorry for you. It's an abomination to pack people in like sardines in our cities, and it's unpleasant to contemplate all those over-stressed and unhappy city dwellers armed to the teeth.But the idea that our government could only ban guns where it's "sensible" to do so doesn't hold water. I defy you to name me one instance in which our politicians have declined to exert more control over how we live when offered the chance.For the longest time I resisted the notion that gun control is a black-or-white, all-or-nothing issue. In theory, it doesn't have to be. But in practice (which is all that matters), it has no grey area because our weapons rights are our only check against the government's monopoly on the use of coercive force. Good thing our Constitution was written with such things in mind.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Trae B. wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

heres my way of seeing it. down here in georgia where I live every person fro a square say twenty miles owns guns and keeps them at the ready and we have never had a murder,robbery,rape,car theft,or any thing else in years and years.Because every one knows that they dont have to worry about the police the have to worry about the armed owners of the houses,because every one answer this truthfully if your laying in bed and you hear a window break tell me your not going to reach for a gun before calling police?and if the 2nd amendment is abolished I would love to see someone try to take my grampa's old 303. british.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from PB wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Owning a gun (in some areas...) is about the only right (guaranteed by amendments...) that you have to pay for and ask permission for...What's up with that?And, what did Charlton Heston say?... "out of my cold, dead fingers" I think that should apply to all of us gun owners. Stick together (...stick to your guns.)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Yukon Varmint Hunter wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Just another democrat living in denial..The cities are where you need a gun, not rural America. The countryside is crime free BECAUSE of the guns. Ahhhh.... So the Constituition has geographical limits within the U.S. ?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bas Rutten wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Maybe you FUDD gun rag readers fans will wake up and smell the CLP.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I still can't figure out what Diana Ross has to do with the 2nd Amendment. ;)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from M.J. Wakefield wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Yeah, any guns but the ones I like are bad, mentality at work here. Throw those guns to the anti gunners and maybe they will be satisfied and leave me and mine alone.Pretty boneheaded idea for anyone to have rattling around in that empty space the brain should occupy.But seriously, there ARE a lot of people out there who think exactly along those lines. "Don't touch my over and under skeet shooter, but the rest ARE bad, so take 'em!"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

You're assuming these people think about the consequences before they act. I believe that's a big assumption.However, let's say they do. I believe so many of these criminals have gotten themselves in such a bad place with drugs or money or both that the risk of getting shot by the person they are mugging is not as frightening to them as what would happen if they don't get some cash quickly.Just my opinion... I do believe you are right though that there would be less crime, maybe not by much, but less is less.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

DC has one of the highest murder rates in the country, if not the highest. I'm sure the armed robery rate is similarly high. I have to assume that the handgun ban is an attempt to address that obvious problem, as opposed to a concerted, direct attack on an (arguably) individual right. As we have seen in other contexts, there are responsibilities borne by the government to try to ensure the safety of the public that may infringe upon the individual. Of course, we can debate the effectiveness of the ban as a crime deterrent, but it appears to have been born out of a community desperate in the face of epidemic gun violence.Also, for every armed ctizen who thwarts a crime, there are probably 25-50 more ostensibly legitimate gun owners who end up using one of their firearms to commit a crime, i.e the high rate of domestic-abuse related murders. So, whether you are dealing with a felon or a "legitimate gun owner" can depend on which day you look at them. The point is its not so easy to say its "us" vs. the criminals.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Kentucky, you are speaking my language brother!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Johann Henrich wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Europe died in Auschwitz . We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million MuslimsIn Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyedthe chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderfulpeople who changed the world.The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science,art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of theworld.These are the people we burned.And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove toourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gatesto 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religiousextremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingnessto work and support their families with pride.They have turned our beautiful cities into the third world,drowning in filth and crime.Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they planthe murder and destruction of their naive hosts.And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanaticalhatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence forbackwardness and superstition.We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and theirtalent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determinedclinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, forpeople consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kentucky wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

That pretty much sums it up, our well paid representatives really need an alignment on what they should be spending their time working on. Like maybe making it a criminal act to enter into our country illegally, the same goes for trying to obtain public assistance if you are an illegal alien.... criminal act. The need to put forth the materials and manpower complete the mission that our warriors have been sent to accomplish. They also need to come up with a way to do something with our health care system.... But no, they feel that it is more important to work on disarming us, and to sensationalize individual acts of violence committed with these tools.....At least I have less of a chance of getting intentionally killed with a gun, than unintentionally killed with a car.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Everybody!Please tell me where I'm wrong. True I live in Upper Michigan, where crime isn't nearly the problem that you city folks suffer. However, if someone decided to make a career out of breaking and entering, they would stand a very good chance of being shot. Since they know this, they don't do it.Wouldn't that same logic work in a city?I realize I'm probably naive but I have yet to see a crime prevention program that works, other than locking up criminals.Even if a proportion of the citizens were carrying, it would have to make muggings, etc. a little more riskyPlease enlighten me.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SSGT John Steele wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SSGT John Steele wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

The bi-partisan SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) with 112 co-sponsors in the House is enjoying so much broad bipartisan support, that House Speaker Pelosi may feel pressured enough to allow it to come to a vote after Congress returns in January. With a similar version just introduced in the Senate, this bill to severely limit illegal immigration may be CongressÕs best chance to achieve substantial immigration reform with this Congress.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I'm sitting in the middle of Philadelphia and I agree that it is a scary thought that everyone could potentially be walking around armed. Unfortunately with the amount of crime in this town that is how I walk around.Our corrupt council/Mayor have ingored all of the "gang" violence that has put us at the top of the murder rate list for quite some time. Now that the bad guys have decided to start shooting at cops all of the sudden we need stricter gun laws. Not sure what the cops think but I feel bad that they are taking the bullets while the politicians use their blood to push some political agenda.Irregards, I live in Jersey and I submitted my application to buy a gun last week. The police chief of my town told me a couple of things, one of which was how ridiculous the process for getting a gun was in Jersey (which he personally apologized for) and two how it was important to own and learn to fire a handgun for fun and defense. That was after I told him I was looking to start turkey hunting and wanted to get my own shotgun. He also told me gun laws only work on law abiding citizens and the prosecutors don't charge criminals to the full extent of the law as it is, so what's the point of stricter laws?I guess my point of that whole rambling mess was that just when you think everything is a disaster you meet a guy like that who reassures you there are people in positions of power that actually get it. Maybe there is hope.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from John wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Anyone who thinks this city shouldn't let its citizens carry is either very naive, has not lived here long enough to remember the days of Koch and Dinkins, or has not been to the same parts of this city and seen the same things that I have. Or maybe all four.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt M wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Being a city dweller, I just don't think everyone having guns is a great idea. I keep my rifles upstate, and when I go hunt, I just pick them up on the way out.This city isn't this blood crazed, shoot em up kind of place people think. If I ever felt like I needed a gun on me, I would hail a cab and get the heck out of there.Anyways, its just my two cents....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

A true story:In the early 1980s, at midday on a humid summer day, I was walking west on 42nd Street in NYC, a hick from the stix delivering a manuscript to a fancy magazine (not F&S, which is pretty darned fancy). Because it was lunchtime, the sidewalks were packed with people.A young man approached me and asked if I would like to "go behind that building over there" to "buy a stiletto."Even a hick from the stix realizes that there are better places to purchase quality cutlery than behind buildings in midtown Manhattan.So I told him that I thought that perhaps I should whomp him upside the head with my handy Totes umbrella, which I was carrying because it was a humid day and thunderstorms were predicted for later in the afternoon. He melted back into the crowd.The moral: To approach this case with the expectation that everybody everywhere be able to carry is inviting disappointment in the extreme. Because for those of us with true grit, a Totes umbrella can also work wonders, and causes much less fear among the populace than a shoulder holster.Anything ANYBODY writes, until the author of the Court's majority opinion lets loose, has all the staying power of a fart in a hurricane.Be not afraid. Wayne LaPierre and Sarah Brady want their respective constituencies to be afraid, because they need to keep raising money, so there will be much conjecture. In the meantime there are still two weeks of rifle season left in the Catskills and I prefer to think about post-rut buck routes.Before this Court does anything remotely sweeping with guns, they will strike down Roe v Wade.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from John wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Matt, I ride that same subway you do, and looking around, it makes me wish I COULD carry a gun to defend against some of those wackos, both "just in case" and in past real situations.NYC has one of the toughest processes to get one for your house - took me 4 months, 5 visits to 1 Police Plaza, $400 in fees, and tons of typewritten (who the hell has a typewriter anymore?!) paperwork & notarized signatures & letters of character reference and a personal interview.I doubt any wackos would be able to pass all of that inspection.Now having been scrutinized as such, the very least they could do is let me carry it, as I have more than proven my trustworthiness.But instead, no, I am still left defenseless against the wackos. Yah, that makes a lot of sense.NOT!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt M wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Hello Everyone-I see all these posts about big cities, and I ask how many of you are in a big city right now?I'm sitting in the middle of Manhatten and I am pretty glad that every wacko I see on the subway isn't carrying a gun. I understand both sides, and am a hunter who appreciates being able to have a gun.But lets be serious here. This issue isn't as black and white as you want to make it. Gun control in a rural area is completely different then gun control in an urban area.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Well put Alamo,I will consider anyone who puts legislation forth that preludes or enacts any gun control law as an enemy of the second amendment; regardless of party lines.I see evil in all colors, sexes and party affiliations.And I hope you get your wish as to the gun control thing being a non-starter.And Greg, I will put the stripes on with you mate. Nobody will take my guns without a fight.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

All I can say is if they ban hand guns where I live then I will be a criminal. Hopefully the supreme court will look at this rationally and not liberally!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I will and do make common cause with folks whom I may disagree with on other issues. Millions of Democrats are gun owners, hunters and shooters. What frustrates me is that many (including some who post here) would rather air their other political grievances than try and influence the national platform of the Democratic Party that invariably features a draconian gun contol plank.I was encouraged that some of the gains in legislative seats made by Dems were won by pro-gun candidates; Heath Shuler, Jim Webb and others. But until rank and file Dems reassert their influence and let the national party know that gun control is a non-starter, I will consider the Democratic Party an enemy of the Second Amendment.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alamo,And thank you for the honest, tempered response. I allow that you are a very intelligent man, and your words will do much more good with the tact you just demonstrated.We need your voice.So lets agree to disagree when we must, and debate hard when we must. Our common goals are much the same.I would also point out, that if your numbers are correct about the felons only making up 1.5% of the population; we need a better argument for keeping our guns. I mean, if we proud Americans can't stop 1.5% of any population with or without guns...Just 2 cts from a guy that loves his guns and his deer hunting and wants the best arguments put forth.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alamo,I agree with you that the ultimate goal would be to disarm us. I understand the ins and outs of taking guns away from families, while the crooks keep them. I realize the crooks won't give them back. But consider this.If we agree that there are those that want to do such evil; that want to do things in such unsavory and unethical ways. Let us put aside party affiliations and do something about it. I realize Mike S. was being very sarcastic, and I share his disgust at the obvious points of disarming us - the law-abiding public, but we have to agree that if this is true, if there are circlesat work that wish their to be great harm to bring about their agendas; we need real action.Oil up them guns boys. This could get good - soon.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Tommy-Mike S. is exactly right. Our largest cities tend to have the most restrictive gun laws; prohibitions of ownnership or almost certainly the right to carry. Effectively this leaves the honest citizen defenseless whereas the common felon who has demonstrated a willingness to do violence has no qualms about arming himself.I'm sure the politicians who advocate confiscation will be happy to accept the arms of criminals who might turn them in. But felons make up roughly 1.5% of the poulation. The vast majority of firearms are owned by law abiding citizens, so in practice, who do gun control or confiscation efforts actually affect? Do you believe that the politicos are too stupid to realize this salient fact? No? Then their only true purpose is to ultimately disarm the law abiding citizens of this country.Think about it....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

This is a case of "Be careful of what you wish for!" if there ever was one! For both sides. For those posting above with "Undoubtably ..." I can't see any clear path to "undoubtably" with this court. The conservative side has it's big government advocates as does the liberal side. On the other hand we are not waiting for a possible Clinton, Obama, Guliani, Edwards Etc appointed Justice to be seated, to me that is good news.Skokie IL has had a gun ban since the 1970's and Chicago itself would not be considered a 2A friendly town either, San Francisco has bans as do many other cities in one way or other. Ironically The Court declined to hear an appeal of a ruling against Kennesaw GA when it passed a law Requiring all eligible heads of household to own at least one firearm.Hope against hope and let's see how this plays out!SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

OK. I will agree, gun laws hurt the law abiding folks. But the rest of the above post borders on lunacy."In most big cities in the US, law abiding citizens are almost totally disarmed"Do what?"They don't want criminals' guns; they want them all."I think the word "all" would encompass the criminal' guns as well. And insinuating that a group of people want the law-abiding peopleto be harmed is, well, a bit paranoid."These tend to be the same people who pass out condoms in elementary school, while seeking legislation criminalizing Americans who don't chew their food twenty times before swallowing."I think you are exagerating? Grossly?WTF?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

While this is an important case, the question before the SCOTUS seems very narrow in scope, namely:"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"It seems the court may only decide upon the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia (which is NOT a state, and whose laws and rules, while passed by a Mayor and Council, are subject to oversight by the US Congress.) I would not put a lot of hope and expectation on this one with regards to an absolute and final decision on the 2nd amendment. But, the SCOTUS has never failed to surprise in the past.Argument will be heard in March of 2008, decision issued in the summer.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Strehlow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

The sad thing about gun laws is that they do work. In fact, they work great... on law abiding people. In most big cities in the US, law abiding citizens are almost totally disarmed. That's why an angry head case can walk into a McDonald's or a New York subway car and kill everybody in it; as most people are law abiding, nobody he meets will be armed.But here is a truth it took me years to see; that only law abiding people are disarmed is fine with the gun banners. They don't want criminals' guns; they want them all. These tend to be the same people who pass out condoms in elementary school, while seeking legislation criminalizing Americans who don't chew their food twenty times before swallowing. They just don't see that taking guns away undoes all of Col. Colt's efforts to make us all equal.Funny thing is, their ignorant, upside-down vote counts just as much as mine does. So they get politicians elected, who get laws passed. Make your vote count next November.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Tommy:I believe there are two Chicago suburbs that have gun bans. San Francisco recently enacted some type of gun infringement a couple of years ago.I too cannot believe that these bans have stood. There must be places where no one in certain cities hunts or shoots for a hobby.Thank the Good Lord I live here!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Just to clarify.I DO NOT THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE BANNED EITHER THE HANDGUN OR THE RIFLE.I just thought they would have started with ''rifles'' in DC.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Does anyone know if there are similar bans anywhere else in the country? If only in DC, I would be a bit confused.You would think they would have banned the ''long rifles'' first. I mean, what other part of the country should we be more worried about an assassination attempt?I would guess ''long rifles'', (dissassembled of course), like that is tough to overcome, would encompass high powered hunting rifles as well as ''black rifles''.This must have been part of the comprimise when the ban was enabled?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I think it's about time the Supreme Court showed some Bal*s and made a ruling on this issue once and for all. This country has far more important issues to discuss then gun ownership: Like health care,the war in Iraq, and our energy crisis!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jstreet wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I don't understand why the law in D.C. has stood this long?The 2nd Amendment is clear, just read it.I still think the left goes after ammo (with higher taxes and banning lead), gun ranges (with tougher zoning and environmental laws) and hunting (with higher license fees).Even if the Supreme Court sides with gun owners the fight is just beginning.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Maybe if every law abiding citizen in D.C. carried, enough perps could be neutralized so as to cut the frequency of repeat offenders.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

This was a story covered by CNN last week. That is where I got the crime rate bit from. They also surmised that this was just in time for the elections, and their ''experts'' did say they hoped it would pin some of the presidential candidates down on where they stood on guns.Let's see that. Right.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I apologize for the multiple posts above. Don't know what the problem was.I for one welcome the SCOTUS decision to consider the Heller case. I believe that at the least the "militia" / "people" argument will be settled. Considering the conclusions pronounced in the most recent scholarly work on the subject, I can only see the court affirming the individual's right.The status of the district may offer an opportunity to avoid a comprehensive ruling as some have noted, but I think it likely they will rule on the collective v. individual right issue.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Benjamin Packard wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

AMEN!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

In light of the fact that crime rates, and violent crimes in general, are reported to have risen since the 70's in DC, when this ban was enacted, I would say it is about time for it to be overturned.I hope this will be a victory for the small guy. The individual, law-abiding gun owner.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Mark in the first post makes me feel alittle better. How crazy is this that its even an issue before the supreme court? SCARY #$%^&^%$$

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

IT'S ON!!!!!The leftys will crawl out of the woodwork now Dave......

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

IT'S ON!!!!!The leftys will crawl out of the woodwork now Dave......

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

IT'S ON!!!!!The leftys will crawl out of the woodwork now Dave......

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Garrett wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

This is seriously offensive to me. Im sure to the rest of you too. I hope this decision is reversed. If it isnt we all are in serious trouble. I will not give up my handguns or disassemble my long guns. They forcibly have to be taken away from me. I could not be more serious!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Oops. That was me in the above post. So worked up I forgot to sign my handle.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Visitor wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

If anyone is looking for the first, final, and ultimate ruling on the 2nd Amendment from the Supreme Court in 2008, think again. I’m willing to lay odds the Court will affirm the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, but will reaffirm use of the Crying-Fire-In-A-Theater argument for letting the states set some conditions and qualifications on this individual right/freedom. In the bottom line, not much will really change.The real importance is not allowing trendy, temporal, social whims fiddle too much with the Constitution. If you can “modify” the 2nd Amendment to present whims why stop there? Why not the Fourth and Fifth? Outlawing Slavery? Obsolete, as is Women’s right to vote. WE don’t need those amendments now…..or so could be the argument.Gotta get back to work, and do some more deer and goose hunting

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from David P.curcione wrote 5 years 30 weeks ago

1. The number of F.F.L.s Licences- will decline too.In State of 188 Counties of State of Texas: the long star State!!!! When each month goes by to, there less Gun Dealers Retailers; of:smaller Businesses are" not avilable to buy a Gun is Scarceriest Diffuilt to get an Conceal Weapon too!!! It will be alot lower number of 3000 F.F.L.s Licences too!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David P.Curcione wrote 5 years 44 weeks ago

1. In Pennsylvania there is on total count of (2462) F.F.L.s Holder"s in 67 counties too. on 10/07/2007 A.D. Too!! 2.We need to,cut it by 1000 F.F.L.s cut dowm too!!! Type-01/o1a Licences & State Licences is included too!!! 2a.Solution is: There will be remaining count of F.F.L.s Licences is (1462)Retailer Gun Dealers Smaller Businesses is fewer numbers: beter controlls of the groups smaller Retailer Businesses Dealers. Type 01/01a Licences & State Licences numbers on Numbers Restricted in lagger Numbers too!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David P.Curcione wrote 5 years 45 weeks ago

1/Texas State has 3935 F.F.L.s Licences to in 188 Counties too. The Law enforcement should cut 2000 F.F.L.s Dealers are smaller one is way to many too. Solution: is There will be 1935 F.F.L.s Dealers Licences in the State to is Controlled in numbers to, agree!! Ths will cut off, the number of: Gun shop Breakings too. By Gangs Groups of Theifts of Guns of smaller Gun Stores to True too. Solution is: there is (1935 ) Gun Dealers of Type-01 too! Agree. It will cut the Gun Crimes down by (0.65)% Down too!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David P.Curcione wrote 5 years 45 weeks ago

1. Let"s say this: they should cut out ,about 0.50% out too! To-lower the Thiefts of stolen Firearms to; Cut out the numbers of Gun Stores too. By 50% cut off too! They Cut off 2000 smaller numbers down too!!! Solution is: the Answer is 1935 F.F.L.s Licences alone to;see how it stands too. If the crime rate reduced in shooting every 70 minutes too. To many Smaller Gun stores do Straw Gun sales undertable deals to Criminals Fellows Fellons Drugs Dealers , KingPin Whole sale Druge Dealers too. Ture!! This is why 2000 Gun dealers need to be down; sizes too! to Stop Homesides Killing by Gangs Groups, GS-13 Northern Mexico Groups Southern Mexico Groups too. They Growing Rapply in Numbers &Growing Fast too!! True!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 5 years 52 weeks ago

Hey Buddy, I'm cute as hell... why not meet me at the Ranger Station at Cheatham Wildlife Management Area in Ashland City Tennessee tomorrow at 4:30am for a Turkey hunt? I'll be there and I got one for ya freak. If nothing else I have some friends that will take you snipe hunting.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David P.Curcione wrote 6 years 2 hours ago

1. The State of Texas has,less of 3935 F.F.L.s Dealers Retailers on (10/07/2007 A.D. Too!! By the next month of ( 11/06/2009 A.D. Too. It will be about (3609 Type-01/01a, an N.F.A. Type-09 &F.F.L.s Licences in State of Texas,too!! They Still Declining alot of lack of Gun Buyers is not as many too!! Let"s Reduced the number of smaller Gun dealers Retailers now! The sales of Used Firearms is getting scarest and hard to find it,too!! True!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David P.Curcione wrote 6 years 2 hours ago

1. The State of Texas has,less of 3935 F.F.L.s Dealers Retailers on (10/07/2007 A.D. Too!! By the next month of ( 11/06/2009 A.D. Too. It will be about (3609 F.F.L.s Licences in State of Texas,too!! They Still Declining alot of lack of Gun Buyers is not as many too!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Visitor wrote 6 years 3 weeks ago

if you don`t want to receive this messages email me at abuse@bestlil.info with URL of your site and i'll take you off the list.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sturmgewehr Kid wrote 6 years 16 weeks ago

Buddy Hinton Sturmgewehr.com is a Queer Neo-Nazi that post on Nimbusters.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

I really don't know what would happen if the United States Supreme Court decided that this was not an individual right. Would they really tell us to turn in all our guns and expect that to happen? The best estimate I can dig up is 150,000,000 people are gun owners and there are well over 300,000,000 guns. The low side is 60,000,000 people with 200,000,000 guns. Sounds like a big problem for someone. I don't think the police could handle it but would the military go door to door ripping through people's houses searching? I just don't see it. It is illegal to grow marijuana and yet it is the number one cash crop in America... maybe we'll all be closet felons after this decision.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Mind bogglingly important, huh, WAM!?BubbaP.S. What does any of THIS have to do with the Supreme Court and D.C.?????????

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

BubbaThanks for setting me straight on the Ralphburger/Whataburger difference!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Well Alamo, guess maybe you might have seen at least one east Texas sunrise!Mention Bill Bradley, most folks think basketball. My mind goes immediately to a Philadelphia Eagle All-Pro Free Safety! But nobody remembers him! He absolutely loved it when they came to Dallas and won!I worked with his dad for many years, got several chances to talk with him. He is very modest and maintains his solitude.BubbaP.S. I was class of '69.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Hey Bubba,Bill Bradley ring a bell? Never saw him on the filed until he was playing for Royal. My uncle was class of 66, my dad, class of 58. My ol'man was career military, so we were in Palestine only between deployments. I ended up graduating from a MO highschool near a military base of course. Palestine is home- my folks still live there and most of my kin are close by.Fischerhunts-For now I am ensconced in Kentucky-gotta follow the money & benes. Was living in Bastrop county until two years ago. My wife actually still works for an outfit out of Austin, so we make frequent trips, she more than I, but I still get there enough to avoid severe Texas withdrawals.Gman-Thanks for the "Friday pass". I figure you know better than to suggest I would take pleasure in anyones increasing health care premiums. I know it's a mess. I just know the sure way to make anything a bigger mess is to involve the federal government.Gotta travel for a few. I'll check on y'all in a few days.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Just remember folks an East Texas meal isn't complete unless there's Yalla-Pino's on the table. :-)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Buckstopper:Thanks, I wasn't sure if I might have written something. I'm pretty sensitive about that because I do have a tremendous amount of respect for just about everyone that I've met down there. I buy all my GPS stuff out of Georgia. When there is SNAFU (often) its so nice to hear that Georgia drawl on the other end of the phone. Then I think that these guys gotta go out and practice with this stuff with Rattlesnakes, Copperheads and Water Moccasins! They invite me down there quite often but I always find a reason to say no.Actually, I think I have a real thick skin with personal criticism.where I lose it quick is when some moron puts something here that's simply untrue about either someone else in the blog or our country I don't suffer fools easily.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Hey Alamo,While I was out traipsing pointlessly up and down the Catskills yesterday, the mailman brought our health insurance premium for next year.Went up 17%, and is now more expensive than our mortgage. Figured you'd get a kick out of that! Time to do some HSA shopping I think.And while I was climbing the mountain, one of the guys rolled out of camp at 9:15, walked 750 yards into the woods, cut a fresh track and followed it into some laurels. Out of another part of the laurels, with no tracks whatsoever, he thinks he sees horns 20 yards away...hey, it is horns! Boom! 9 points. Never got out of its bed.All this for a grand total of 15 minutes' hunt. But he is one of the guys who hunts hard and high most the time, so he earned this "easy" one.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

WMAAlamo claims to be "from" P'tine, Tex. I am a native of P'tine.Ralph's was a hometown legend. There were "hamburgers" and if you were really hungry, "Ralphburgers"! AND, they were the ultimate, grease dripping off your elbow, mustard in the corner of your mouth, onion breath dispensing concoctions that would make What-a-booger blush in shame!Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

SAI probably could have said that better! I think my train of thought went something like this: While Gun Control is important, there are other issues that are just as important. What good is a fine deer rifle if you can't buy the gas to go hunting, or if you can't afford the hunting license. The Islamo-Fascists want world domination. If they continue to pursue this goal, hunting and sport shooting will play a minor role in our existence. What amazes me is that candidates who think like I do on these issues also think like I do on 2A.I just want everyone to think before they vote! Even if someone thinks of me as "a gun nut" please look at the candidates that I support for there overall views on the other issues.Thanks,YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

YooperI agree with you that we have multiple issues to concern ourselves with this election (as with any in my memory) but I can not agree that 2A Rights are less important. The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of our Democracy; all legislation is supposed to align to that cornerstone just as all the walls of a building are to align with its physical cornerstone. Recent years have seen an erosion (gradual at first now more rapid) of many of the Rights our forefathers fought and died for; just turn your TV on to the CourtTV channel and watch all the ways Rights are violated.SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FISCHERHUNTS wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Alamo,I'm in N BexarBout u

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

yooperjack,I did not mean include you as a south basher. I think your one of us. I'll drink a Makers Mark with you over a campfire in the UP anytime.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

I thought everyone in South Texas fed on Whataburger's? What's a Ralph burger?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Buddy Hinton Sturmgewher wrote 6 years 19 weeks ago

Any cute guys on this board?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

And for of the people who posted above, that hunting isn't necessary, remember, Grandma might still be with us had there been Reindeer hunting seasons at the North Pole!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Hey! Good news! According to Gallup Poll, I'm not crazy! This diagnosis was made by my wife on many occasions over the past 35 years. Unfortunately the article didn't say whether you have to actually join the GOP or just vote that way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Buddy Hinton Sturmgewher wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

It never ceases to amaze that the "girliest" of men among us, those who send others to fight illegal wars but who did everything in their rich daddy's power to avoid fighting in one themselves and, those who make their living sitting on their fat asses endorsing the former chicken-shits and otherwise mouthing off, are the first ones to point a finger at someone else for not being as "manly" as they imagine themselves to be. If these idiots are so manly, why aren't they out loading trucks, raking concrete and installing iron on high-rises?Sexual ignorance and repression has, over millenia created mindsets and monsters that tend towards various perverse expressions.Take the Catholic church and it's penchant for pedophilic priests.The exterminition of females primarily, as "witches" during the Middle Ages? Recently, Amish girls were murdered, the little boys spared. The Christian community lauded the Amish for showing the world, "dignity", by "forgiving" the murderer for killing little girls. Little was said about the gender-defined targets, or why he targeted them. What about Hitler, our favorite Christian? One shining example of "righteousness", and "manliness", and "power". One of most reliable monster- mindsets is the American-style, bland accessment of females as (secondary), sex-objectified, or politically or financially "profitable" to males, and thus also expendable, entities. We are told, that it is the "proper role" of females to support males. For carrying on the "bloodline" for "breeding". Males over the world are considered more "valuable", and, this is the sad lie. The "provocative, deceitful female " has been identified as causal; origin of everything that can be victimized without consequence. Bought and sold. Enslaved. Chattle. But mostly brainwashed. Pity that. Maybe Emily jilted or ignored Cho Seung-Ho? He wasn"t getting any, no doubt. Neither was Hitler. The language of beauty; of peace; of equality as "persons"and the culture that supports these concepts...will perhaps flourish again. We do not yet know when or where.If Cho Seung-Hui had not been unreasonably fearful, had used common sense and not had a gun, a beautiful young man would still be alive. There are too many Cho Seung-Hui out there too many little people of limited social skills, limited practical intelligence and limited conscience who not only fail to think before they act but refuse to take responsibility for their actions.Our Constitution does not give us rights without responsibility, so where is the personal responsibility in this?We have the NRA to thank not only for the deletion of personal responsibility from the equation, but for all the people who will die as the result.Comrade Cho, through his glorious sacrifice, has blazed the trail for the final downfall of decadent American capitalism! The running dog plutocrats of Wall Street and Washington rightly quake in fear at the imminent triumph of socialism! The inevitable outcome of the historical dialectic will be the slaughter of the parasitic capitalists followed by the establishment of a socialistic paradise where such basic needs as food and medecine will be freely and easily available to the proletariot. Arise, my American brothers! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Wulf wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Ellis Island is about New Yorkers, and slums, and street gangs, and organized crime. Yeah, they came in as legals, but they jacked up the crime rate like mad.Some day they'll put up a monument to the border jumpers who slip in the country, drive drunk killing our kids, molest our children, go on our welfare, ruin our schools and clog our hospitals. The monument to them should go to the good folks who slip across for a better life through working, not the ones who came here nudged out by the Mexican Federales!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Hey Alamo,If you have ever eaten a Ralph burger, then you are truly from the Holy City!If you can remember who (QB) led the "Wildcats" to the '65 State Championship, you can claim Palestine!This is a test! Where was Ralph's and who was the QB?To find a truly magnificent "blues guitarist", one must only travel to West, Texas. Willie played country because it made him money, his real love is blues.Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard C. wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Is the 2nd Amendment an individual right? Or a collective right? Should international treaties include a right to bear arms?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1955 Peterbilt 351 wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

am not a Troll......Show me some proof Buddy Hinton is a well known troll all over the net...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dana wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Here's all the proof you'll need!http://nimbusters.org/forum/read.php?board=8&id=420971"I am not a Troll......Show me some proof "

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from KJ wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

OK - buy me a LaBlatt Blue and I'll drink it. And smile. And belch. Then buy me another. Then you can go away.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Donny wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I am not a Troll......Show me some proofhttp://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/general.cgi?read=52866

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from KJ wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I like LaBlatts.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I never was really that much into blues but when I started researching my favorite artists, most of them got their start in blues bands. Now I want to hear some of those bands live but most of the greats are dead.Anyway, I generally drink LaBatt Blue (not light), but frankly, I can't tell the difference between any of the full bodied beers. One thing nice about the Canadian beer is that beer drinking in Canada is apparently causing global warming and its a bit cold here in the U.P. (8 deg F).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I seen them typos over yonder, Alamo, but it's Friday afternoon, so you get a pass today.All this Texas blues talk is bringin' me back. One night back in Po-town, Albert Collins was playing the famous Chance club (the place where the Police played to 6 paying customers just before Roxanne blew 'em up). And Guitar Jr Johnson was playing a smaller club a mile away. After Guitar Jr's set, the guys running that show drove him over to The Chance, he got up there with Albert, and the place never closed up until 6 AM.And I got paid to hang out like that...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Agreed Mark-1, Freddie King was one of the greats. Vaughn frequently said Freddie was his greatest influence, and when ever I heard him play "Hideaway" he always acknowleged F. King. I wish he'd lived long enough for me to hear him in person.Yeah Johnny & Edgar are east Texas swamp rats. My family is from Palestine, TX so we're more of the same. Texas has a great tradition with the blues, from Blind Lemon Jefferson and Albert Collins, to Billy Gibbons.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Lots of great musicians out of east Texas. Stevie Ray and Jimmy are certainly both great Austin people. I understand Johnny Winter is from Beaumont. SRV had more commercial appeal, but I thought he borrowed real heavy from Albert King on his slow numbers. Jimmy Vaughn struck me as more “studied” and original.I think of all the great bluesmen and players out of Texas none can compare to Freddie King of Gilmer. I don’t know how any guitar player can be a pop player without studying Freddie King.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Visitor wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I saw SRV in concert in Pittsburgh about a week before he died. I have always counted it as a blessing that I got to hear him live.I still have the T-shirt I bought that night.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Little Wing?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Well Gman, we have even more in common. Dr. Ralph, your wife has impeccable taste.I saw Stevie when I was a lad in 81 at Clifford Antoine's, then several times subsequent to that. In the "pre Montreaux" days he was a shy kid, but an enormous talent. Voodoo Chile is classic, but I'm a "Texas Flood" man. Do you know "Life Without You"? There's a song that will send a chill.His brother Jimmy (of Fabulous Thunderbird fame) still plays Austin on occasion, and he is also a great axe man. Back in the day Austin was a great place to see legends; Albert King, Clarence Brown, the Winter brothers. Even today there's a lot of talented musicians plying their trade in Austin.Asutin is a great place, an island of blue floating in a sea of red politically. With a few exceptions though the lefties are pretty friendly (it helps to have them surrounded!). Got into a big pissin' match with Molly Ivins (RIP) there once; Honest-to-God Loon Jim Hightower was her backup. Now that was fun.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Funny, I couldn't connect SRV. I always thought of him as Wisconsin, but I think that's where the crash occurred.I hadn't heard him called that since,1990?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Don't get me started on Austin, Alamo! One of my favorite T-shirts is the famous "Keep Austin Weird" shirt, which my wife got me.Back in the day, before I made my living poking around the excitement of telecommunications and health policy, I was a rock critic...and without doubt, one of the most profound music experiences I ever had was when SRV made his first small club tour in '83. The man made chills run down my spine when he played "Voodoo Chile," and that was the only time in 10 years of being paid to listen to music that happened.Ironically enough, if you know Austin music very well, the name Terry Lickona might ring a bell. He's the producer of Austin City Limits. He and I also grew up about 5 years apart in the same town; Poughkeepsie, NY. When SRV's copter went down, I spent an hour on the phone with terry, who told me all these great Stevie Ray stories.So yeah, I'm good for Austin one of these days.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alamo:Its worth a try!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from KJ wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Sign me up, Alamo.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Emmanual:While I believe that nuclear armament is the most illogical concept ever devised by mankind, the statement above makes nuclear arms logical.THE GOP/CNN debate the other night was a debate putting the GOP against Hillary. Most of the questions asked were questions that would tend to show all of the GOP candidates poorly with respect to Mrs. Clinton.Truth be known, there are probably 6 issues more important to a candidate than 2A. Taxes, Energy independence, Security from foreign terrorists, security from domestic terrorists, immigration, hell, I could go on forever. But the sad fact for Mrs. Clinton is that she loses on every issue!I would rate homeland security as the primary issue when I vote next year. I believe that 2A is an integral part of homeland security, at least from domestic terrorism.With news outlets like CNN spewing propaganda for one candidate, were going to have to learn to read "the stitch on the fastball" so we can make inteligent choices next fall.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Make mine a Coors and not that silver bullet crap... if I want light it'll be a Hornady Light Magnum. Alamo I figured you'd be a Lone Star man. And I thought you were kidding but I just googled SRV monument and there it is. My wife's in love with the boy but I'm kinda partial to Jimmy Page.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Fichhunts, KJ, Yooper-I'm down with the cold beer- make mine a Shiner Bock. I'd love to see the U.P. and give those big yankee bucks a whirl.My alternate location would be the hill or brush country of SW Texas. And the music out of Austin (the best launching pad for a hill country expedition) is pure blues.It is required to drink at cold beaded Shiner at the foot of SRV's monument before any serious undertaking.And I think Gman would enjoy an Austin excursion as well. Wild, carefree libs may be observed in their natural habitat-moonbattery personified.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Donny wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Vote Hillary Clinton for freedom!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

SLAnother one pulling stuff from his pooper! The Second Amendment is not the most vague! It is short and to the point! In the context of the Bill of Rights there is no ambiguity, it is an INDIVIDUAL right! As I have said before; no sovereign government ever had to give itself the right to arm its militia.SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Albert Sand wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dave I coul;d not agree with you more on the answer to your post of Nov 28th at 10:32, you get a second AMEN.On the laws being passed.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Emmanuel wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alright folks, let's see if I can't light this thread up again. Pasted below is a quote from a recent piece by Ron Rosenbaum, a very fancy New York writer. It seems that a key bit of reasoning that is standard among gun owners really dawned on him when he started contemplating what the world would be like if we were to ban the ultimate "arms" -- nuclear arms."In other words, I hate to say it this way, but if nuclear arms are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear arms. Even gun-control advocates, and I am one, don't believe that the abolition of all guns is possible or necessarily desirable. An outlaw with a gun can rob a gas station. If nukes are outlawed, an outlaw with nukes can rule or destroy the world, or blackmail it at the very least. Do we want a world where the only nondisarmed nuclear power is al-Qaida? What's to prevent such an outcome in the abolitionist scheme?"What ch'yall think?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tom wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Let's just hope that ol' pumpkinlegs Clinton doesn't become president. Otherwise I'm gonna have to bury my guns outback!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ron in WY wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Pity the poor ewes!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Boy that would be great! I could do the pub with Motown I could do a picnic or something else outdoors with Sam Adams (except in bug season). The only problem with fine wine is when I quit drinking wine, Boone's Farm was the hot brand.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drager wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Do you support independence for Dixie? Are you fed up with the attacks on your heritage and culture?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from KJ wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Fischhunts, I'll take you up on that one. I'm strictly a beer or wine man these days, but an ice cold Sam Adams always goes down good. And in the spirit of this topic, we could find a bar someplace playing the Supremes (or some other Motown tunes). Hopefully there would be a few nice shoulder mounts on the wall. Otherwise, a Sam Adams by the campfire in say, the U.P. during deer season might work, eh Yooper?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I just have to sound off on this North vs. South thing, having been on both sides of the aisle. I grew up in Indiana and we told jokes about how we had the largest zoo in the world. We just fenced in Kentucky and Tennessee. What's an Alabama virgin? A ten year old that can out run all her brothers and cousins. Then I moved down south and I wasn't a Yankee. I was a damn Yankee and no way in hell was I going to take out any respectable Southern Belle. People would not do business with me and I was truly aware of how bad it must be to be black. Now my accent is so thick people automatically assume I'm some sort of inbred toothless half wit when they speak to me on the phone... We're all Americans black, white, brown, yellow, north, south, east and left coast. It's been 150 years, come on folks.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I wasn't condemning them, Alamo. The issue was truly the baby facing Solomon...and I doubt the Union would have happened at all had the compromises not been made as they were.And even though I hail from old, old, old New England Puritan stock, I have never jumped on the bandwagon of those who singled out the South as a singular evil as slavery was dealt with in the Western world in the 19th century. Perhaps the most cataclysmic end of slavery came here, but it was truly a global evil..and it ain't gone yet from many places.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Fischhunts:I'd like that if we could pull that off. Logistically, its probably impossible.Gman, Alamo:I totally agree and said above that the Civil War was the greatest tragedy in our history. Ever since I sstarted looking at the U.S. Constitution, I wonder now if President Lincoln's efforts to preserve the union were in fact legal? I realize its a moot point now, but I often wonder what the result would have been had we agreed to separate?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Gman,Your point is well taken, but I still contend that the general tone of the founding documents made slavery untenable as an institution long term. Witness the deeply emotional struggles of Jefferson and his absolute refusal to change "All men.." despite considerable pressure to do so. Today the conudrum of slave holders whose words and compositions reveal a deep revulsion for slavery are hard for the 21st century mind to fathom. It for me is difficult to condemn those who struggled with that atrocity in the 18th century.Agreed that the civil war was the greatest of tragedies, but it also says much for this country that our ancestors were willing to engage in that awful undertaking.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alamo,Gotta disagree on the Constitution laying the groundwork for abolition. In fact, the compromises the convention made to accommodate slavery in order to create the Union led to the Civil War, not abolition.The 3/5 clause alone gave the slave states power far beyond the votes in Congress their free population merited. To whit, and I take this from David Stewart's "Summer of 1787:""The 3/5 ratio gave slave states fourteen extra seats in the House in 1793, 27 add'l seats in 1812, and 25 add'l seats in 1833. Those extra votes meant that when crises erupted over slavery in 1820, 1850 and 1856, slave owners in positions of power ensured that the political system did not challenge human bondage."Take that as you will, but I think the most unfortunate part of the ending of slavery in the US was that elsewhere, involuntary servitude ended much more peacefully in the mid- to late-1800s. Why we ended up killing so many of our own is one of the great tragedies of history.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chev James wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

If you would-be gun grabbers don't like the Second Amendment, then change it! See if you can muster the necessary support for a Constitutional amendment. Just DON'T be disingenuous and claim that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to "the people," because it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It didn't say militia members or soldiers--it said "the people." Once you claim the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says, you lose ALL credibility with us because you are now guilty of "double-speak," i.e., changing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences at will to suit your own agenda. By your logic that only the "militia" have the right to keep and bear arms, you are saying the equivalent that "freedom of religion" belongs only to military chaplains, and that "freedom of the press" belongs only to the government. You want to change the Constitution? There's a way to do just that--but you won't succeed in trying to deceive us with tortuously twisted arguments.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rusty In Missouri wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Too say that this is a deep felt issue appears to be an understatement. There has been more printed in this blog than may come from the courts. I commend many of you for your well written statements and all of you for your contributions. This is how this country started and hopefully how it will remain; through debate of issues important to us. The first amendment in action. Once again thank you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from joe anderson wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

the big secret of constitotionis the first 3 words until we all quit being sheep get aspine take up arms and send a cristil clear message to all goverment oficials that they work for us and it isnt there decisions to make without our permission will we get the results we want its time to put em in there place and take our country back give me liberty or give me death ."p.h."

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Fischhunts wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alamo, Yuperjack, KJ,I'd like to buy you guys a drink someday. Your sentiments are well written and I'd be proud to know you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shaky wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

To Bob&Kathy Owens; that is very informative, and I have printed it out. Be assured, I will use that information often, until all my liberal,gun grabber aquaintenances are well aware of whom their champions actually sprang from.On a more serious note, I haven't stopped laughing 20min after reading that post. THANKS FOR MAKING MY DAY.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Fischerhunts wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

U-tube Debate?3500? Vidieo questions were sent in and CNN filtered them. No wonder we got the questions they got. This was very well set up by the Clinton News Network to show how crazy those "GUN NUTS" are. I thought the candidates handled it very well.gmanLets examine the 1st amendment. Why is it that all you libs want to reinstated the "Fairness Doctrine"? Doesn't that fly in the face of the 1stA?If that F.D. becomes law all of these blogs go away. Talk about you're Tyranical Gov. By the way the term "Figures don't lie but Liars always figure" applies to you and most of the democratic candidates.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

After all, when criminals are being prosecuted or in the pre-trial phase in this country, lawyers for both sides often and almost certainly will bring up past incidents of wrong-doing; and attempt to correlate them to the present case. We all know they will debate/argue for days over the pertinence of these past acts, and their legitimacy, as to relevancy with the case at hand; as well as character.But, I would say the founding fathers left it to us to decide when or if we ever needed to disarm ourselves. Or whetehr or not we should keep guns at our sides forever. I would say Alamo is correct in that they certainly understood human nature to the point of being able to predict alot of what is going on today, in many facets of life. Human nature is pretty easy to predict in that way.Rats in a cage.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

SL,Your point is partly well taken.The logic of; well if they were wrong on this one, they COULD be wrong on that one, is somewhat valid, though in this case, a long-shot at best. It is also weak.I think that sort of thinking in general is good though; to look at the issues at hand and think outside the box. But to say if some of them owned slaves or thought of women or minorities as less than equal, then that must mean they were wrong on the 2nd, is just plain argumentative.Alamo,I don't really think he meant to berate that document we all hold dear, I think he just wanted to reason that if one man or men make mistakes, just like all other men, we have to allow that they could make other mistakes, though I side with you on this one.Also, I know he said he, "laughs at those who hold the founding.....", but please remember tact.You are far too intelligent to start this again.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from KJ wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

The first amendment protects many things, first of which is the freedom of religion, which is essentially the freedom to think. The other clauses in that amendment protect the right to express those thoughts. The second amendment protects the first, so to say. These are absolutely necessary to a free society.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

For all of you that believe that that 2A is flawed. Can you honestly believe that the First Amendment works after last night's GOP debate?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

SL-You demonstrate your lack of understanding with a most captivating naivete.While I would agree that no framer could project the state of society, they most certainly fashioned a document that correctly estimated the nature of man.The natural right of a person to defend themselves and their families from those who would do them harm, singly or collectively, will never be anachronistic.The great and sacred document you denigrate in fact laid the groundwork for the abolishment of slavery here, long before the practice was defunct in Africa or the Middle East.The founders you disdain were certainly flawed men, though demonstrably many of them anguished over the millenia old slavery issue. Regardless of your preciously facile conception of those men and their work, they authored the two most earth shakingly important documents extant. They forever changed human history for the better. Remarkably around the world the Delaration and the Constitution are regarded as the most important thoughts of the rights of man and the obligations of government ever codified. Sadly, it is apparent that some in this country are either too blind or too stupid to realize their good fortune.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Bob and Kathy Owens:How in the hell did you ever dig that up? Thats interesting!SLYou underrate the Founding Fathers. They prayed a lot so that they could draft a document that would hold the country together, and weather any developments that occurred.Their payers were answered! The U.S. Constitution has provisions in it for amending this document! These changes to the Constitution are called amendments!If you don't like 2A, amend the Constitution so that this amendment is repealed. It doesn't take rocket science to figure this out. You might have a potential lawsuit against your learning institutions also. Apparently your teachers were lax.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob & Kathy Owens wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Many of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, almost exactly 60 years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object UFO)with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell , New Mexico . This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and other federal Agencies and organizations.However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of March 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:Albert A. Gore, Jr.Hillary RodhamJohn F. KerryWilliam J. ClintonHoward DeanNancy PelosiDianne FeinsteinCharles E. SchumerBarbara BoxerSee what happens when aliens breed with sheep? I certainly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you. It did for meCheck out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SL wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

For those who claim that even some liberal legal scholars side with the 2nd amendment, why then do other conservative ones like Bork have their reservations about it? The real facts are that the amendment is by far the most vague of all. I laugh at those who hold the founding fathers up on somekind of holy pedestal and think that they had the foresight to know what a society would be like 200 plus years into the future with any of the laws they enacted. If they are to be put up on pedestals for enacting such a great individual and human right as the 2nd amendment, many of you patriots should also be condemning them vigorously for being the slaveowners that most of them were. Of course, I wouldn't expect any of these patriots to do so for various and also obvious reasons. If we are to consider their philosophies about slavery to be outdated and flat out wrong in this modern world, why couldn't someone have a valid claim that their opinions on gun-ownership could be equally as flawed???

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Buckstopper:I don't think any of us intended to slur anyone in the South. If it wasn't for you guys down there, the rest of us in "Flyover Land" would be in deep doggie doodoo right now. What's saved us are conservatives from the South, both Dem and Rep.When I was in the service, it seemed like most of the guys were from the South. Also, there weren't any freaky people from down there. Pretty much all normal guys. I'm sorry that you are offended, that that war happened and people will make reference to it. I for one believe that its by far the saddest period in our history.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dave Petzal:Thank you for making thisforum available to us. Apparently, we need this!We've been discussing the Second Amendment, and flushed out a lot of Kooks. I watched the GOP debate on CNN last night and was aghast. Someone who was portrayed as one of us sent in a video question where he was thrown a shotgun! Duncan Hunter, in his response to the 2A question, admonished the man for his careless handling of a firearm.The questions were supposed to come from undecided Republicans. Now it turns out that a lot of the questions were from Democratic plants. There were people portrayed as undecided from the Clinton Camp, the Obama Camp and the Edwards Camp. I believe four have been identified so far, and you know that you never catch them all.All in all, I thought the candidates did well. John McCain, Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee handled this forum very well and I would be comfortable voting for any of the three. I thought Fred Thompson seemed distracted. Rudy and Mitt used their time to nail each other.I am very upset that the First Amendment is being abused. Freedom means responsibility! While we have a free press, we certainly don't have a responsible press.My hat's off to all the GOP candidates who braved enemy territory last night. They did well!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Hillary Fan - One word for you "Myanmar" you are right we don't see dozens or hundreds gunned down there; because the despotic thugs running the country shoot the media as well as the monks!Tobes et al. you are pulling numbers out of your asses! Simply put there are no credible statistics which verify a decline in any sort of crime after a gun ban or restriction! None! Truth be told those states with the least restrictive gun laws tend to have lower violent crime rates than the states with the more restrictive gun laws. Yes I know you will cite Arizona as having few restrictions and relatively high violent crime but most of that crime is gang and or drug related; how many gangs have lined up to 'Stack Arms' where laws have been passed to disarm them?? None, repeat NONE!SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from retired waycar rider wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dave, out here in the high plains of NE-- where we don't seen to have any trouble with the 2nd ammendent,we finally got a concealed carry law, but, we've always been able to carry a gun --pistol or long gun around with us as long as it was in plain sight, we can still shoot people that come into our house to do us wrong, but now, he greed of some large companies, has caused the invasion of wetbacks from south of the border to work for cheap wages. the federal goverment doesn't want to guard our borders, to keep this threat out of the country--in a couple of generations these people (who won't learn to speak or write our language) will be here in enough numbers they will be running the whole middle of the united states. WATCH-OUT--when they are running things, they'll let anybody with cash, middle east or whatever get a toe-hold and then we'll be in deep shit. Right-now , I believe the 2nd ammendent business is just a smoke screen to cover up the rest of what I've out lined in my letter.---lots of career politicons aren't going to upset their apple card to help us. where would the Clintons be if they had to work for a living????? sorry about the wrong ramble--but I feel a little better now.... retired waycar rider

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Ralph, if Ron Paul were as strong on supporting individual rights nationwide on Roe v Wade as he is on most other things, he would have my vote today. Might still get it.Buckstopper, I only bring up the Recent Unpleasantness when somebody laments the passing of states' rights. As you say, we are supposed to have moved on.But both you and Ralph bring up an interesting point. We are obviously long past the point where states' rights is a viable overarching doctrine over federal power...but there are still, as we know, many states with right to carry laws. Just as many states have severely restricted abortion, other jurisdictions have enacted various firearms restrictions. If you live in one, and it is that important to you to live in a jurisdiction that encourages ubiquitous packing, move! That's the spirit of America. Or, hell just do what the crooks do, and buy a gun underground and hide it. If you need it for self-defense, no jury's gonna convict you of the really nasty charge; and when the government breaks down and you need it to fight tyranny, who's gonna put you in jail, anyway?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Yikes! I can't believe all the gun grabbers on this blog. They make Forrest Gump sound like Einstein, by the way, Enstein fled a gun grabbing goverment and we know how that turned out, at least those of us who actually studied history."A well regulated ..." in the day it was written means keep plenty of ball, flints and dry powder.If the NRA is a RNC front, how come they support a liberial Democrat congressman from southern state. Sadly the kook faction of the DNC is in control and the right to bear arms Dems are shouted down. The NRA can only be a one issue oriented organization. Anytime we "compromise" we lose. Never give an inch.Also, I am sick and tired of the stuck up Yankees who end any argument with a reference to any Civil War battle. Okay, you won, the world was better for it. We have moved on... so should you.SGT. York was a backwoods, bible believing, southern farmer. Yet he fought under the stars and stripes. Our troops today are from all parts of the country of every political persuasion, yet they still fight under the same flag. We are ALL AMERICANS! From Bangor to Birmingham, St. Pete to Seattle. The Bostonians started the Revolution, The Virginians finished it. Todays issues effect us all North and South, East and West. We all should rally around the 2nd Amendment, it ensures the rest will still be around.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ken wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Tobes is just plain insane and His facts ,aren't even close !Ken

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Strehlow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

To TB:I hope you are just playing 'devil's advocate' with your ranting. Because if you are an example of a sane person, then I want to be crazy. The idea that any gun club, that anybody, would rejoice over a Columbine is almost too atrocious to deserve a reply. I've met a few liberals who could be civil; you aren't one of them.I suspect you are too young to remember the sixties. I am old enough, alas, to remember them well. And in the sixties, in the US, God was kicked out of the public schools, a 'war on poverty' was enacted that destroyed the poor black family,X rated movies began to be shown in public theaters, and the drug culture was born (up to then, drugs were a back alley thing). And you blame guns for violence? It was your liberal heroes who did these things.Do you think guns create crime? Well, everybody in rural areas owns a gun; every farmer has one, every rancher. If guns cause gun violence, why isn't the country a war zone? Why don't wealthy lawyers build their mansions in the center of town rather than miles out in the sticks, if there are so many guns out there?We live in a country where in many cities, even a power outage results in every window within rock-throwing distance of the sidewalk being smashed, everything that can be carried off being taken. Our so-called civilization is more fragile than you may think.I lived through hurricanes Ivan and Katrina. The many "you loot- I shoot" signs I saw every place but New Orleans at least partially explains why only New Orleans was looted after those hurricanes. An ugly truth yes, but a truth nontheless.Why do crime rates drop in states that enact carry laws?Why is the murder rate so high in places that have draconian gun laws... Washington DC, for example?Here's the main point; EVEN IF I thought that a gun ban would reduce crime and violence (I don't), when I hear that noise at the back door late at night, or when my car breaks down at the wrong time of night in the wrong part of town, I want to have a gun. When I leave my family alone, I want them to be able to protect themselves. When the storms come and the power goes out, and there is no police response, I want an option. All the facts, all the statistics, favor our camp, but even if they didn't, I would want my family to have the right to protect itself. We are not statistics.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Nancy... or we could just elect Ron Paul.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coach ike wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

melvin:you say it is still relatively easy to purchase a gun these days. what state are you from? because in new jersey if you want to purchase a gun then you need a purchaser's firearm permit which requires a $35 fee and a background check by the state police---that could take 3-4 months. then when you do get your permit, you pay an additional fee the day you buy your gun for an instant background check. and while you are waiting for everything to clear, to purchase ammo for that gun you need to show identification (driver's lic or you guessed it--- firearm permit) and sign it out. now you talk to me about hipocrasy!!! yes it is in the constiution to bear arms but as a politician we will make your life absolutely miserable while doing it!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Boogs wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Ralph,If the tyrannical federal government really bothers you that much, why don'tcha sneak up on Ft Sumter again and send 'em a pop or two. They ain't expectin' it this time, so them wimpy federal parks folks'll run up the white flag quicker'n you can say Nathan Bedford Nottingham Forrest.See ya up on Little Round Top.Nancy

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chev.Jim wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I really hate to see crime blamed on gun owners and on NRA members in particular. We have crime because of one simple reason: we, as a society, are too soft on crime. I have been waiting for someone to explain to me why we don't lock up violent criminals and pedophiles forever. Don't talk to me about expense--house them in tents like our soldiers have had to stay in. Let them grow their own food. Here's the solution: you commit a violent crime, burglarize a home or molest a kid, then you're not coming out of the slammer until you die. You get rid of probation and parole and the associated bureaucracies, and you don't have to worry about sex offender lists--because ALL of the violent criminals and child molesters who've been convicted of these serious crimes are taken out of circulation forever. Then we can stop worrying about stupid "gun control" laws that liberals want because they're too "soft" to implement the policies described above. It's always easier to impose restrictions on lawabiding people than to take the tough measures against criminals. In a society, you get what you tolerate: if you tolerate crime, you'll have plenty of it. If you send the message that crime is not tolerated, you'll see it drop dramatically. You gun banners out there need to realize that the people in the NRA and other lawabiding people who own guns are NOT the problem, and we're sick of you trying to complicate our lives and take away our rights because you lack the intestinal fortitude to meet the real problems head on. Get serious and we can work together. First, you have to learn who the enemy is--and it's NOT us. You can rant and rave and legislate against us until hell freezes over, but it won't affect the crime rate one iota.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

TB... There is nothing "harmless" about driving a vehicle even in the safest of environments. It is just too risky. A stray turn could hit someone. As you can see, any reasonable person would support the banning of all automobiles. You're so pathetic it's not even funny...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shaky wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

H.F.; I don't know for sure what "drive"you crazy, but something certainly has

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

The second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America... one sentence 27 words. "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." When this was written the militia was every able-bodied free man between the ages of 15-45... there were laws requiring that plantation owners have sufficient powder and ammunition and that their pieces be fixt and compleate... You were required to own arms. This says a lot. Our states are no longer free. They are controlled by a tyrannical federal government that taxes the people and holds the money ransom to force states to do their will.Just the idea that a man must have a firearm at work to protect lawyers and judges and is not allowed one in his home to protect his wife and family makes me sick...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MidnightBanjo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Oops - should be a couple hundred years ago.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MidnightBanjo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

"The idea of a bunch of right-wing gun nuts armed with rifles and pistols going up against the world's most modern, best-equipped, best-trained army is so pathetically sad it's almost funny."Kinda like some rebels going against the Brits. a few hunders years ago - right?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MidnightBanjo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

From Alamo:"Most frightening of all was her attempts to circumvent the legislative process and utilize tort law and wildly capricious product liability suits to bankrupt the firearms and ammunition industries, along with subjecting individuals to insanely boundless personal injury litigation."Holly cow!~ Can you actually say that all in one breath?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from TB wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

There is nothing "harmless" about firing a deadly weapon in even the safest of environments. It is just too risky. A stray bullet could richochet and hit someone. As you can see, any reasonable person would support the banning of all guns. It is time we put these gun-toting extremists in jail where they belong! Trust me on this, I was a fundamentalist gun owner for several years. That's why when incidents like Columbine happen, gun clubs across the country get together and celebrate (very discreetly, of course) because there are that many less children in the world to meddle with their gun practices. I've seen it more times than I'd like to admit. I got out of the gun cult 3 years ago and would encourage others to do the same.It is clear to me that the 2nd amendment needs to be updated for the 21st century.Due to the Constitution's age and the present interpreting "arms" as guns and munitions.I want to stress that the Second Amendment is outdated.The idea of a bunch of right-wing gun nuts armed with rifles and pistols going up against the world's most modern, best-equipped, best-trained army is so pathetically sad it's almost funny.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tobes wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Are you fine folks going to follow the hysterical lead of the NRA and other gun-nut organizations or man up ? The government should ban all private ownership of guns, I say that you can't be too careful, and we must do this to protect the children. Citizens should not have the right to own firearms for self-protection, hunting, target shooting, and recreational purposes.The vast proportions of Americans recognize the reality that individuals do not have a legitimate need for guns.We must recognize that gun violence is a multi-faceted problem and requires a multi-faceted approach. We must recognize that as we sit idly by, that police officers and scores of innocent children are being injured or killed.They are weapons of war and are being adopted in large numbers by the most violent members of our society. Since we first enacted the ban in 1994, there was a 84% reduction in the crimes committed by these weapons. Congress must act to re-enact the Assault Weapons ban.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt from NM wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

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.Melvin, now we can all read it. Notice that it:A. Does not define militiaB. Require that any one belong to a milita.Actually it implies (and later case law states that all able bodied males between the ages of 15 and 41, IIRC, ARE the militia) that the people have the right to bear arms so there are armed citizens to BE the militia.Can you imagine Lexington and Concord if the patriots had to stand in line at the arms room? We'd still be waiting for the "Shot heard 'round the world" two hundred and thirty-odd years later.The "ya gotta belong to a milita" argument is akin to putting the egg back in the chicken, not determining which comes first.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from melvin wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Tobes! Here we are, a century later, and there are less gun control laws on the books today in many areas of the U.S. than there were in many parts of the Old West. Despite what today's gun nuts would have us believe, in most of the U.S., it is still remarkably easy to buy a gun these days.Of course, you'd never guess this was the case, if you listen to the NRA's hysterical propaganda. The NRA would have us believe that guns are already heavily regulated in America today and that the feds are on the verge of kicking in our doors and confiscating every last gun in the nation.However, if you take a close look at the specific issues that drives the NRA ballistic these days, you realize just how weak gun control laws are in this country.Take, for example, the NRA's furious, ongoing opposition to the Brady Bill. This modest legislation does nothing more than simply require a check on the backgrounds of gun buyers for criminal activity. And thanks to the NRA, the law is filled with enough loopholes to drive a truck through (such as the gun show loophole).It's hard to imagine any sane person opposing the Brady Bill. But the NRA took up the case and raised such a hysterical fuss that one might have guessed that the law called for nothing less than the repeal of the Second Amendment.Despite what the NRA would have us believe, controls on guns in America have actually weakened over the past quarter century. For example, when George W. Bush was Texas governor, he signed a "concealed-carry law" at the NRA's bidding. When he did so, Texas joined 22 other states that since 1986 had made it legal to carry concealed weapons. Today, some 48 states allow some form of concealed carry.Bush also signed a bill denying Texas cities the ability to sue gun manufacturers (so much for his lip service to the idea that local entities ought to be able to conduct their affairs without meddling interference from state government).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Reeder wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Is it just me, or does it strike anyone else that some of the hysterical, wacked-out anti-gun sentiments being expressed by some of the posters to this site could not possibly be coming from anyone who actually owns guns or hunts? I'm willing to concede that a liberal gun owner might be willing to overlook the Democratic Party's near-monolithic support for restrictive gun laws because he or she supports everything else on the liberal agenda. I'm not a one-issue voter myself. On the other hand, some of the stuff I'm reading sounds more like an outright antipathy to guns and gun owners than it does anything else. Sounds to me like there are some rats in the woodwork.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Oh, Hillary Fan,Now you've done it. You've done gone and got a passel of fellas mad as hornets. See, if you're gonna be a lefty on this board, you gotta be nimble. And truth be told, in the countries wherein the tools of violence are confined to the authorities, it's the authorities who randomly shoot 70 or 40 or 20 people.So you're gonna get took to the woodshed for that. And then somebody's gonna talk about how the right to bear arms is really to stave off a tyrannical government - but I reckon mightily that, if me and a bunch of my lefty friends were behind one barricade with our shooting irons, defending our rights to getting a warrant before the tyrants wiretap us, or fighting to uphold a woman's right to an abortion, 99% of the fellas on this board would be shooting at us from the tyrants' side of the barricades. Because while a foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, when push comes to shove it ain't tyranny most these fellers don't like. It's liberals. And the world would be better off without us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"If you can't understand that phrase, you should sue the college and high school that you attended because you got screwed!Then again, I remember a few years ago when libs were trying to figure out the meaning of the word "is"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tobes wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I know that the NRA leadership is really not much more than a paranoid mouthpiece for racist republicans "Party of God" . Any hint of new gun policy and the gun-nuts go, uh, ballistic.he he. You know the values that Christ talked about? Helping the poor? Compassion and love? Turning the other cheek? Blessing the peacemakers? Well, none of that has anything to do with "Christianity" as the present-day Republicans understand the term. To them, somehow Christianity has something to do with repression, hatred of gays, bigotry, ignorance, and a general distrust of anyone who isn't a white Republican Protestant.The NRA gun nuts went ballistic when Eastwood's film was released. They claimed Eastwood was "inventing" history. When serious historians rose in Eastwood's defense to point out that many Old West towns did in fact have such policies, they failed to silence the NRA gun nuts who were upset that their John Wayne wet dream fantasies of the Old West were, in fact, bs.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hillary Fan wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

am sick of stories about guns, and how the blessed Founding Fathers wanted every little patriot baby to grow up with a Kentucky long-rifle over the mantle. It is a lie. It is a myth. The very idea is a concoction by people who want to believe something, regardless of the facts, and the fact that the lie has deep roots does not make it any more accurate.I am sick of stories about people who claim that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”You do not see 70+ people, or even 40, or 20 … or, (you get the picture) randomly gunned down in any of the countries where the tools of violence are confined to the authorities.Anyway, the point is I object to the way they flip flop on their arguments - refusing to get on board with important things, then wasting our time using the same arguments for irrelevant things. It's the hypocrisy that drive me crazy.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt from NM wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

If your opposition is to your own gun possession then I have no opposition to your opposition. When your opposition is to my possession that's when my opposition is in opposition to your opposition.Or as my sainted granny would say, "You tend to your knittin' and I'll tend to mine." That's what the Bill of Rights is all about.Welcome to the watch list. There are so many of us by now that they can never watch us all.Heheheheh

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tobes wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Owning a weapon is not a constitutional right if you don’t belong to a well-regulated militia. Why is it that most Gun Nuts Support Ron Paul but RP is curiously absent from the NRA website ? Sounds like the NRA is part of the machine .. sad Once we Dems confiscate your guns, we can demobilize your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chev Jim wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

In the Atlanta Journal Constitution today, there were articles by former Congressman Bob Barr, an NRA board member, and by Paul Helmke, who heads the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Barr ate Helmke's lunch. All Helmke could talk about was the need to pass "sensible" gun laws. Well, the D.C. ban wasn't sensible. It effectively disarmed all citizens of the District of Columbia. Let's say you don't like pit bulls--and I don't. However, if the Constitution says, "A well protected citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and walk pit bulls shall not be infringed," I cannot claim the right to ban pit bulls even though I personally despise them. The D.C. law was the equivalent of having you euthanize your pit bull and then cut it up into at least four pieces. It's very dangerous to "monkey" with the Constitution and claim it doesn't mean what it says because you think a portion is outmoded or shouldn't apply any more. If the Second Amendment applies only to "militias," then the First Amendment applies only to National Guard public information officers. Let's hope the Supreme Court doesn't try to twist the Constitution to satisfy any liberal constituencies. Once you go down that path, there's no turning back. Yes, a lot of states and municipalities risk having unconstitutional laws overturned--and that is just as it should be.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from melvin wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

No one ever bothers to read the second amendment. It doesn’t say that all citizens have the right to bear arms. It says people can bear arms if they are a part of a well-regulated militia. I don’t know a single gun owner who belongs to a militia, much less a well-regulated one. All the gun nuts say they have a second amendment right to bear arms but they have never read the actual amendment, obviously. The people who twist the second amendment into something it isn’t are the same people who ignore the UN charter and maintain that the war in Iraq is a noble cause. Right wingers are scoff-laws who don’t give a damn about legal niceties.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coach ike wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

yes massachussetts!! it was on the 6pm cbs news. is that such a crock of bullshit or what? tell you what, have the politicians come to my house and take whats left of my manhood and just cut my testicles too while they are at it!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nathan wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Why are these gun nuts upset? The NRA has long associated itself with an imagined history of America in which those who love freedom always owned firearms. It’s nice to see that at least one of our Consitutional rights is being vigorously protected. Pity it’s this one.Actually, since many of us “Democrats” are probably on terrorist watch lists, and we may very well have to protect ourselves from Blackwater Warriors of God someday, I am actually rethinking some of my opposition to gun possession.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt from NM wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

People's Republic of Massachusetts?Home of the heros of the Cam Lo River and Chappaquidic Bridge?Surely you don't think they would pass a nanny law!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coach ike wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

this country is seriously going down the toilet fast. when is the last time a politician did something good for the country? uh how about....NEVER! when the hell is government going to fix the problems that exist instead of creating new ones that are constantly in everyone's business? when is a judge finally going to stop entertaining this bullshit and start putting the lawyers in their place? now massachussetts wants to create a ban on spanking your own child? what other problems do the politicians want to create?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I wish we could bet on this! I would pick "The court reverses the lower court's decision by a vote of 7-2" The dissenting Justices being Brier and Ginzburg, with Ginzburg writing a dissenting opinion. The Majority Opinion will be written by Chief Justice Roberts. The language of 2A is just too simple to be ignored and only 2 justices believe in "Constitutional Evolution"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Like I said way above, fellas; we're all just fartin' in a hurricane.Send Justice Kennedy a note if you feel it will do any good. Yellin' at me ain't gonna do any good. I have no power to do anything but annoy you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt from NM wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I think that people (especially the body politic) forget that the first ten amendments to the constitution, popularly known as the Bill of Rights, refer to rights granted to all men by "their Creator", not rights granted by the government. The BoR merely recognises those rights and guarantees that the government will never abridge them. (I think we all agree they ain't quite battin' a thousand.) Note that the 2dA mentions "free standing" militias. Not "state" or "National Guard" or "organized", but militias raised by the citizens, consisting of the citizenry. Hence those citizens must have an uninfringed source of arms.Certainly the case can be made that arms of the 18th century do not begin to equate to those of the 21st. No one can reasonably expect the average citizen to have access to, nor necessity for, tactical nuclear hand grenades or Ma Deuce rock and roll bullet launchers, but the personal protection of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are legitimate concerns of the individual. Thus personal posession of devices to accomplish said protection are needed, the need is recognised, and the prohibition of government to infringe upon said need is codified.It seems that the greater problem is the normal lack of necessity for the citizenry to be armed. Carrying a sidearm is a real PITA. (Been there, done that. Former Sky Marshal. Remember those?). So most people just think "So what, I don't have/carry a gun anyway." Un-used right is un-needed, right? By the same token, what percentage of the eligible electorate takes time to vote. Un-used/un-needed right, right? (As long as it ain't MY ox being gored!)As for the government's responsibility to protect the individual, there is none. The police are to protect "society as a whole" not the individual. Case law any number of times. As a previous correspondent said, "Cops are too heavy." Fortunately I live in an open carry/CCW must be permitted (after you are checked out and can prove you can hit what you aim at) state. Will I go through the nut roll to get my permit? Probably. Is the process an infringement? Probably. Is it an unreasonalbe infringement? Probably not. After all demonstrating that I'm not a substance abuser or felon is not all that bad. (Let's not go into the mentally deficient part. Questions have been raised from time to time, but nothing has ever been proven.) It's my right. I spent 18-1/2 years in uniform to defend it and I choose to exercise it.To quote a bumper sticker (source of much contemporary wisdom), "911 - Government Sponsored Dial-a-Prayer".

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve C wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Sorry, but Alamo’s comment also got me thinking again. I promise to stop after this (posting, not thinking).I use to discuss the 2nd Amendment with a very right-wing, pro-gun everything friend of mine. He took a far right view of guns being a right – no if, ands, or buts regardless of what the Supreme Court or anyone else would say now or in the future.When I conceded to his opinion (to humor him), I asked where he got his “right” to hunt. He smiled and came back, “The pursuit of happiness”.As far as any opinion of guns being the cause of any problems, I always remember the analogy: Guns are no more the cause of violent crime than a fork is responsible for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Hey Gman:I know that I have a lot to be thankful for, but if there is anything I'm lacking, its liberal friends! I'd like to meet the people that blame guns for all of our problems. Two cops were killed in Florida this A.M., after being run over by a car. Do we ban autos next?I associate liberalism with arrogance. Liberals believe that they can solve every problem with new laws. Mankind is not all that smart. Every new law that we enact has unforeseen consequences, whether the law deals with the environment, economics or social issues. I remember that this country once declared war on poverty. While there were many good results from this endeavor, many black scholars attribute this effort to the distruction of the family in black neighborhoods. This aspect has contributed more to crime than the gun hasIn short, I don't think that restricting gun ownership will have any positive results with respect to crime.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Damn, this so easy if you just open your eyes.The leading Constitutional scholar of the last 30 years (for better or worse) is Laurence Tribe. In his public comments he has lamented the existence of the Second Amendment because philisophically he favors government control if not outright confiscation of firearms. However he also realizes that any such act requires an abridgement of the Constitution. He doesn't like what the 2A says, but as a scholar, to preserve intellectual integrity, he must concede that the 2A guarantees an individual right.Second. No proponent of control or confiscation has EVER produced documents or records from the founders that support the collective right or militia argument. None. Conversely the wrtings of various founders and framers that support the individual's right to keep and bear arms are abundant and conspicuous. Not only do those precious records support the individual right argument, they are also very obvious when stating the motivation: To avert tyranny. Not so we may hunt, or even to protect ourselves from criminals (although self protection is mentioned), but ultimately they advocate a privately armed citizenry as a bulwark against governments inexorable propensity to oppress.Gman,Somehow your assurances that Hillary doesn't want to disarm me provide little comfort, given that she was the catalyst behind every effort of the Clinton administration to infringe on gun rights. Most frightening of all was her attempts to circumvent the legislative process and utilize tort law and wildly capricious product liability suits to bankrupt the firearms and ammunition industries, along with subjecting individuals to insanely boundless personal injury litigation.IF you are a liberal, and a gun rights advocate, reform your national party. But what you're selling won't be bought here.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Reeder wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Any fair and unbiased reading of the 2nd Amendment in context with contemporaneous debates and writings at the time of its adoption must lead to the inescapable conclusion that it, like the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, applies to individuals and not collective militias.On the other hand, as someone once astutely said, the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the current court veers from left to right depending on the whims of one or two justices. All the more reason to hold candidates' feet to the fire about their selection of judges.As for rural vs. city living, I grew up rural but worked in D.C. for five years. In rural Texas everyone had a gun, usually with them, and I never felt threatened. In D.C., every criminal has a gun and no one else has any means of protection at all. Even tear gas and pepper sprays are illegal. The police dept. there is abysmal, city government is dysfunctional and the crime rate is astonomical. Hardly a career criminal gets arrested and even fewer are convicted. I would have felt a helluva lot safer if everyone on the streets was armed to the teeth instead of being at the total mercy of criminals, virtually all of whom were armed. I'm just happy to be back home in Texas, where we value life enough to execute those who take it, and where the right of armed citizens to protect their lives and property is enshrined in the law, our state constitution and culture.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from carney wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

"...Armageddon for the 2nd Amendment"?The Armageddon scenario is this: Jesus shows up and the bad guys are dust! Revelation 19:11-21.Dave, I'd like it to be that easy for the 2nd Amendment but it probably won't be...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Steve C.,"After they looked around and stopped throwing up"Dude - that is absolutely astoundingly hilarious.Says this two-toothed, jack-eyed proud to be a barefooted hilljack RED-NECK from NC!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rusty In Missouri wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

One of the things I dislike is to explain and define myself but I will as the slings and arrows have struck. I am a life long hunter but also a scholar with strong opinions on both.The meaning of the Second Amendment is one of the most misunderstood and disputed among the entire Bill of Rights. The working is not clear as Mark pointed out.It declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Infringment is left to interruption which is one of my concerns and specifically does not address the right to bear arms outside of a well regulated militia. I also do not have a good feeling on a ruling by the courts.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

There's a lot of fear of liberals and thugs and politicians being expressed here, especially considering most of y'all are tough and resolute guys with guns.Yooper, I am a liberal and I don't want your gun unless it's one of those new T/C Icons in .308. Lemme know so I can have Hillary pick it up when she swings by your way. It's just a sweet-looking implement.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve C wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Mark's comment about our Forefathers intent got me thinking.Imagine if we could go back in time to get clarification on the 2nd Amendment. Or better yet, transport them to the future in their powered wigs and tail coats. After they looked around and stopped throwing up, I suspect they would tell us that the present situation wasn’t envisioned.The Constitution was adopted during a time significantly more emotional, threatening, and political than now. Yet cooler heads prevailed and it’s still a remarkably applicable document 220 years later. Let’s hope the Supreme Court follows their lead.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

The 2nd Amendment IS poorly written. I think it’s intentional as our founding fathers were just as spooked and politically two-faced on this issue as our present politicians are.Bad administration, but good politics. Deal with it, folks.Court Watch??? I think Kennedy [he’s an angry and disgusted man] will be the deciding vote affirming individual right/freedom on the 2nd Amendment, but he’ll give the States power to add qualifications and restrictions to said freedom/right.I reaffirm again, after all is said and done the Status Quo will prevail….even though its fun to try calling the shots…so to say.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Steve C:You are probably right. The two newest judges are strict contructionists and there is a majority of judges who are strong enough on individual rights to overturn that gun ban.Everyone:Please keep this thought in mind when you go to the polls next November. We had a SCOTUS ruling a couple of years ago where the high court referenced European Law when a decision was handed down. Would anyone in this discussion feel comfortable right now if all nine of these jurists were clones of Ruth Bader Ginzburg? If that were the case, I wouldn't be shopping for guns, I'd be selling them.Next time you go to church, please kneel and thank the lord for 200 voters in Florida in the year 2000.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve C wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

“…it is the illusion rather than the real thing”.That about sums it up.Any major decision by the Supreme Court will have little affect the pro-gun or anti-gun ranks. This is more an emotional issue and less a legal issue or even political issue. All of the laws, statistics, and evidence in the world isn’t going to sway enough people from their position to make a meaningful difference in who supports what.I personally don’t see a decision against gun owners. The economic and political fallout would be untenable for either party. It’s one of the few dominoes nobody wants to be the first to push over.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from PDKMF wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Bobby:You're in the wrong blog...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Rusty I won't be as polite as Yooper and beg to differ. I'll simply say you are wrong.The Second Amendment is most certainly clear in meaning and content. Only those who disagree with the intent of the 2A try and claim otherwise.Even traditional liberal anti-gun scholars have reached the conclusion that the 2A is an irrefutable individual right. Laurence Tribe of Harvard and Sanford Levinson of UT Law among others have angered anti-gun zealots by declaring this truth. Whatever their politics, God bless their intellectual honesty.The supporting historical evidence of the founders intent concerning the 2A is overwhelming. It can essentially be summed up by the declaration of Justice Joseph Story, veteran of the Revolution, professor of law at Harvard, and the youngest ever appointee to the SCOTUS: the Second Amendment is "The palladium of our liberties".

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dave P.Amen.Most of the politicians of all persuasions ARE politicians for three reasons:One, they are power hungry, self-aggrandizing A-holes.Two, they are so intelligent that they alone can solve the woes of the ignorant masses.Three, we are too stupid to manage our own affairs and they must do it for us.We should start on them as soon as we are done with the lawyers. Old Will was right.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dave Petzal wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

To Michael:Good question. The answer, I believe, is this:Legislators operate on the premise that if they enact laws, they will correct society's problems.If they enact laws and no one pays any attention/and or nothing is any different, it means that they, and what they do, are irrelevant.This is so terrifying that they keep passing laws, regardless.In recent years, Congress has become more and more irrelevant, which may be the reason that so many long-term Senators and Representatives are bailing out, realizing that they have accomplished nothing, and will accomplish nothing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Michael wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Had to sound off again, Dave.Where were the police when Chandra Levy was murdered?Where were the police when two small children were hacked to death in a rural California town by a dope-crazed lunatic (which the police shot several times when they finally arrived) because a local ordinance said all guns in a home had to be locked up so children would be safe. The teenage child who knew how to use a gun couldn't get to it. Any law enforcement officer worth carrying the badge will admit the police get there after the fact! The only people at the scene of a crime is the victim and the perpetrator. 99% of the time the only defense a person has is self-defense.Here in Texas last week a man observed two men breaking into his neighbor's house. He called the police who kept him on the phone asking stupid (but probably required by dept. policy) questions. He went outside, yelled at the two men (illegal immigrants) to stop. They came on his property in a threatening manner (eliminate a witness?) He shot them both. dead. The national media has had a field day with this one; I sincerely hope he is not indicted by a grand jury.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Rusty in Missouri:I beg to differ. There is a lot of historical data on 2A. The Founding Fathers knew that man is inherently corrupt. They prayed a lot when drafting all of the original documents. They did not want the country that they were starting to evolve into something tyranical. They knew that an armed populace would deter the tendency for tyranny. This is the primary reason why we have the Second Amendmant.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shaky wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Bobbi; I have been a member of the NRA for many years, I know hundreds of people who are also members. I haven't known a single one who has plotted or carried out a plan to shoot pre-schoolers, or anyone else.Actually, I am as insulted as Alamo, he just beat me to the reply, and is more aticulate, but I say this, If you are violently attacked and I am close by, I guarantee that you will be glad that the NRA has protected MY right to own, and carry a gun.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Michael wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dave,Why is it politicians (and some others) turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the irrevocable, unarguable fact that criminals will continue to acquire firearms despite any gun control law; these laws only affect the law-abiding citizen. "Criminal"- a person who has total disregard for the law- duh. Oh, well. I answered my own question when I said "politician" - one who makes promises they never intend to keep.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Not to insinuate that it's always a white guy moving into a mostly black neighborhood, but with the social situation the way it is in this country at present - that is usually the case.I did not intend to sound racist in the above post. I want to be clear on that regard.Many of my friends for years have been black guys, and I would have it no other way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I can tell you Clay.Because the crooks know the look of that guy, you know, that white dude that ain't gonna take shxt. He moves in with his guns, sits on the front porch for the first few weeks and watches.And they see him.They now he is marking them, marking their faces, where they live, who they run with, and what they do. They know he will act in a second if something is up, and very often, if they know he is armed; the streets clear just like you say.It's much the same on a basketball court, when you are the only white guy playing - and staying on the court. As I did for many years as stress relief after work; by myself at the courts with the best comp around.When you first show up at a new court - they're like hmmm - I wonder. Then you wait your turn - pick your team and play. Then you stick the wide open jumper, because nobody will guard you at first. You are white - they think you will either fumble the ball over or air-ball the shot. But you stick it. Then the first time you fake the jumper and drive - they wonder less. They may even smile. But not all of them. You will be tested. Then the first time you get checked and you check back.They wonder even less.Soon - your color matters not and you are just playing ball. Boundaries are set and the game has its rules imposed by those in the area - just like the neighborhood.They know there will be consequences if they act, and that is a deterrant.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Clay CooperYou hit the nail on the head. Virtually everyone who is for restrictions on gun ownership has some type of personal protection. They carry, have bodyguards, get police details assigned to themselves and family and live in places with elaborate security systems. Yet, they demand their citizens live in places that they can not or will not protect. Then they excacerbate the problem by voting for judges that are willing to let convicts out of prison after short prison sentences.How often do we watch on the news, where someone is arrested for a heinous crime, and that perp has a rap sheet with a table of contents. The commentators ask "What was that person doing on the street?" There was a caseon TV last night where a honeymooning couple in Seattle was murdered by a convict who was recently released after serving time for killing his mother. The judge felt he had paid his debt, but she was wrong. She is still alive but no one can bring that newlywed couple back!I can simplify this.1)Liberals want our guns.2)Liberals want as many felons on the streets as possible.3) Liberals want our votes so they can think about the problems caused by 1 and 2.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rusty In Missouri wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

jstreet,The 2nd Amendment is not clear in meaning or content. As far as any court making a clear ruling; I have my doubts.Most of the ranting that has been posted will be our biggest enemy. Ask any historian, coach or military officer and they will tell you once you have the opposing camp divided you have the victory. Our own division will be our end. Now I stand for the suffering the slings and arrows for these statements but I feel they are the truth; divided we fall.In the light of aphorism.Rusty

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Can somebody explain why, when I move into a neighborhood with break-ins’ and drive bys etc come to a screeching stop and kids start playing in the street because it was now safe for them?The Second Amendment is a individual right Second Amendment.This is the question that is NOT BEING ASKED!Question: What government entity is responsible for you and your family’s personnel safety?If they say no government entity is responsible for you and your family’s personnel safety and your forbidden to protect yourself I would open a class action lawsuit against that government entity and the State! It’s time to turn the tables and put the boots back on the right feet!!!Sure is funny that those Anti gun nuts carry and say we cannot! Sen. Barbra Boxer carries concealed weapon I hear.The left says you have free choice! Provided it’s the choice they give you and it’s final!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

People fear guns because of how criminals use them. Stricter gun laws will not affect criminal action or intent. This ruling is really about Washington D.C. and it's failings as a city to protect it's citizens. No one is allowed to own a handgun there yet it has the seventh highest murder rate in the country... is this explanation simple enough for the dumbocrats to understand that gun laws don't work and a free populace is an armed populace? Probably not...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

"Bobby" (Kennedy, Jr.?)How many NRA members do you know?Well let me tell you something about that demographic. I will admit that I don't have the statistics, only years and years of observation.The "average" NRA member is college educated, married, has children, gainfully employed, never had more than a traffic ticket, in the upper percentiles of income, and by all traditional measures a success.If you were to move into a new neighborhood, I doubt any single affiliation could assure you that the folks next door are decent, hard working, and law abiding more than NRA membership.The "hardline" of the NRA that the MSM and others assail is simply a response to the absolute determination of venemous activists to disarm these good citizens. Because of my NRA membership people like you "Bobby" try and paint me with an extremist brush, and I have every right to be pissed off about it. I will compare my personal attributes and contributions to this society, along with those of my family, or for that matter, my compatriots in the NRA with anyone. To label "us" as extremists is ignorant, insulting, and in the end feckless.The net result is millions like me telling our representatives and people like you- Never. We will not negotiate, we will not compromise.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dustin:The majority of gun owners in the US are not wild-eyed radical loonatics as you suppose, we are your banker, barber, baker, the gal-down-the-street. Perhaps a tad leaning to conservative values though some of the responders here are mighty liberal. Point is; do NOT lump us all in a heep with the very few individuals who carried out one of the worst acts of terrorism to date on our soil!Dani:The contributing factors to domestic violence are too numerous to list here and while you are right that some 'studies' have shown that the presence of weapons in those violent homes increases the severity of the abuse. One should note however that since 'Lautenberg' was passed the data indicate little to no change in recurrence patterns after mandated confiscation of weapons. The sad truth seems to be that until we make other steps to address the factors which are known to incite or increase domestic violence nothing will change.MattM:I doubt any of us believe that the Court will be so sweeping in ruling on this case as to dramatically affect concealed carry laws (either way). Branding those of us who would carry if legal as whackos just plays right into the hands of our enemy. Some of the most notorious serial killers in recent urban US history haven't used guns, because they didn't need to (no one else had guns).SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from semp wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

' ... a cop is too heavy'My yuck for today!Bless you SSGT Steele.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kentucky wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Those who sold us the Constitution swore up and down on a stack of Bibles that checks and balances would ensure that our limited and weak "federal" government (with rights retained by individuals and states) would NEVER pose a threat to our liberty. But even with Jefferson, the executive went off the deep end, and the temptations of those with power to both abuse and aggrandize it never end.We could use a little devolution of power, and a little greater local control.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Emmanual:You're probably right about the Libertarian Party, but so what. A third party candidate has a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected President. All a serious 3rd party candidate on the right will do is guarantee Hillary's election, which will result in more erosion of all of our rights.Dustin:I am somewhat conservative. I am also a Christian. I'm very patriotic. DON'T EVER LUMP ME IN WITH RADICAL GROUPS. We are hard working, tax paying people that enjoy hunting, shooting and reloading, but most of all spending time afield with our kids, grandkids and friends. This time is ecologically beneficial as it controls populations of wild animals and because we buy licenses, we fund a great deal of ecological research.If you can think of better ways to achieve these goals, fine, but name calling just doesn't cut it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bobby wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Dear Dustin, It's perplexing that some of the these NRA fanatics are intelligent and possess high reading skills and all calling themselves patriots. Fundamentalist preachers and gun dealers rank among their leaders.Like all cults, this gaggle spreads bizarre talk. Meanwhile, right-to-bear-arms nuts aren't the only True Believers ready to kill and die for a NRA demented logic. Normal Americans can't comprehend , but it's increasingly clear that we can't escape the nightmares guns cause.The NRA sees itself as the supporter and defender of the holy cause to which is clings to a out dated Contstitution.The NRA thinks their cause is more important than the lives of preschool tots and people. To them, mass murder is justified to deliver their vengeful message. To the rest of us, it's madness that someone would make elaborate secret plans to massacre children as a public demonstration.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dustin wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Before I start talking about gun-nuts and gun-loons, I want to make my own position clear on the 2nd Amendment. I think the NRA and the even more extreme gun ,heavily armed loons , mostly fringe rightists in the country. (like whacky Religious militias) are all nuts.rogue gun dealers (ie- right-wing militia terrorists like the nut cases who blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building). NUTS! I wouldn't like to see another civil war or an insurrection.I think most people-- not counting religionist loons-- pretty much.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Emmanuel wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

"Just another democrat living in denial.."I'm unconvinced that either mainstream political parties give much of a d*** about the Second Amendment or the rest of the Bill of Rights. Very few folks who work for the government are in the business of declining or relinquishing power over our lives, no matter how sterling their intentions.There are plenty of Republicans who aren't particularly sympathetic to the concerns of gun owners. Mitt and Rudy come to mind.The only party I've found to be consistently, fully and unabashedly in support of gun rights is the Libertarian Party.If you're curious, many Libertarians also favor lightening tax burdens, dismantling the federal bureaucracy and generally getting Uncle Sam's nose out of your business.Before Ron Paul ran for president as a Republican, he ran as a Libertarian. His views on gun control reflect that.As for you boys who live in a city, I'm sorry for you. It's an abomination to pack people in like sardines in our cities, and it's unpleasant to contemplate all those over-stressed and unhappy city dwellers armed to the teeth.But the idea that our government could only ban guns where it's "sensible" to do so doesn't hold water. I defy you to name me one instance in which our politicians have declined to exert more control over how we live when offered the chance.For the longest time I resisted the notion that gun control is a black-or-white, all-or-nothing issue. In theory, it doesn't have to be. But in practice (which is all that matters), it has no grey area because our weapons rights are our only check against the government's monopoly on the use of coercive force. Good thing our Constitution was written with such things in mind.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Trae B. wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

heres my way of seeing it. down here in georgia where I live every person fro a square say twenty miles owns guns and keeps them at the ready and we have never had a murder,robbery,rape,car theft,or any thing else in years and years.Because every one knows that they dont have to worry about the police the have to worry about the armed owners of the houses,because every one answer this truthfully if your laying in bed and you hear a window break tell me your not going to reach for a gun before calling police?and if the 2nd amendment is abolished I would love to see someone try to take my grampa's old 303. british.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from PB wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Owning a gun (in some areas...) is about the only right (guaranteed by amendments...) that you have to pay for and ask permission for...What's up with that?And, what did Charlton Heston say?... "out of my cold, dead fingers" I think that should apply to all of us gun owners. Stick together (...stick to your guns.)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Yukon Varmint Hunter wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Just another democrat living in denial..The cities are where you need a gun, not rural America. The countryside is crime free BECAUSE of the guns. Ahhhh.... So the Constituition has geographical limits within the U.S. ?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bas Rutten wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Maybe you FUDD gun rag readers fans will wake up and smell the CLP.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I still can't figure out what Diana Ross has to do with the 2nd Amendment. ;)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from M.J. Wakefield wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Yeah, any guns but the ones I like are bad, mentality at work here. Throw those guns to the anti gunners and maybe they will be satisfied and leave me and mine alone.Pretty boneheaded idea for anyone to have rattling around in that empty space the brain should occupy.But seriously, there ARE a lot of people out there who think exactly along those lines. "Don't touch my over and under skeet shooter, but the rest ARE bad, so take 'em!"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

You're assuming these people think about the consequences before they act. I believe that's a big assumption.However, let's say they do. I believe so many of these criminals have gotten themselves in such a bad place with drugs or money or both that the risk of getting shot by the person they are mugging is not as frightening to them as what would happen if they don't get some cash quickly.Just my opinion... I do believe you are right though that there would be less crime, maybe not by much, but less is less.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

DC has one of the highest murder rates in the country, if not the highest. I'm sure the armed robery rate is similarly high. I have to assume that the handgun ban is an attempt to address that obvious problem, as opposed to a concerted, direct attack on an (arguably) individual right. As we have seen in other contexts, there are responsibilities borne by the government to try to ensure the safety of the public that may infringe upon the individual. Of course, we can debate the effectiveness of the ban as a crime deterrent, but it appears to have been born out of a community desperate in the face of epidemic gun violence.Also, for every armed ctizen who thwarts a crime, there are probably 25-50 more ostensibly legitimate gun owners who end up using one of their firearms to commit a crime, i.e the high rate of domestic-abuse related murders. So, whether you are dealing with a felon or a "legitimate gun owner" can depend on which day you look at them. The point is its not so easy to say its "us" vs. the criminals.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Kentucky, you are speaking my language brother!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Johann Henrich wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Europe died in Auschwitz . We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million MuslimsIn Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyedthe chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderfulpeople who changed the world.The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science,art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of theworld.These are the people we burned.And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove toourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gatesto 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religiousextremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingnessto work and support their families with pride.They have turned our beautiful cities into the third world,drowning in filth and crime.Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they planthe murder and destruction of their naive hosts.And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanaticalhatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence forbackwardness and superstition.We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and theirtalent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determinedclinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, forpeople consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kentucky wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

That pretty much sums it up, our well paid representatives really need an alignment on what they should be spending their time working on. Like maybe making it a criminal act to enter into our country illegally, the same goes for trying to obtain public assistance if you are an illegal alien.... criminal act. The need to put forth the materials and manpower complete the mission that our warriors have been sent to accomplish. They also need to come up with a way to do something with our health care system.... But no, they feel that it is more important to work on disarming us, and to sensationalize individual acts of violence committed with these tools.....At least I have less of a chance of getting intentionally killed with a gun, than unintentionally killed with a car.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Everybody!Please tell me where I'm wrong. True I live in Upper Michigan, where crime isn't nearly the problem that you city folks suffer. However, if someone decided to make a career out of breaking and entering, they would stand a very good chance of being shot. Since they know this, they don't do it.Wouldn't that same logic work in a city?I realize I'm probably naive but I have yet to see a crime prevention program that works, other than locking up criminals.Even if a proportion of the citizens were carrying, it would have to make muggings, etc. a little more riskyPlease enlighten me.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SSGT John Steele wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SSGT John Steele wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

The bi-partisan SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) with 112 co-sponsors in the House is enjoying so much broad bipartisan support, that House Speaker Pelosi may feel pressured enough to allow it to come to a vote after Congress returns in January. With a similar version just introduced in the Senate, this bill to severely limit illegal immigration may be CongressÕs best chance to achieve substantial immigration reform with this Congress.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I'm sitting in the middle of Philadelphia and I agree that it is a scary thought that everyone could potentially be walking around armed. Unfortunately with the amount of crime in this town that is how I walk around.Our corrupt council/Mayor have ingored all of the "gang" violence that has put us at the top of the murder rate list for quite some time. Now that the bad guys have decided to start shooting at cops all of the sudden we need stricter gun laws. Not sure what the cops think but I feel bad that they are taking the bullets while the politicians use their blood to push some political agenda.Irregards, I live in Jersey and I submitted my application to buy a gun last week. The police chief of my town told me a couple of things, one of which was how ridiculous the process for getting a gun was in Jersey (which he personally apologized for) and two how it was important to own and learn to fire a handgun for fun and defense. That was after I told him I was looking to start turkey hunting and wanted to get my own shotgun. He also told me gun laws only work on law abiding citizens and the prosecutors don't charge criminals to the full extent of the law as it is, so what's the point of stricter laws?I guess my point of that whole rambling mess was that just when you think everything is a disaster you meet a guy like that who reassures you there are people in positions of power that actually get it. Maybe there is hope.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from John wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Anyone who thinks this city shouldn't let its citizens carry is either very naive, has not lived here long enough to remember the days of Koch and Dinkins, or has not been to the same parts of this city and seen the same things that I have. Or maybe all four.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt M wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Being a city dweller, I just don't think everyone having guns is a great idea. I keep my rifles upstate, and when I go hunt, I just pick them up on the way out.This city isn't this blood crazed, shoot em up kind of place people think. If I ever felt like I needed a gun on me, I would hail a cab and get the heck out of there.Anyways, its just my two cents....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

A true story:In the early 1980s, at midday on a humid summer day, I was walking west on 42nd Street in NYC, a hick from the stix delivering a manuscript to a fancy magazine (not F&S, which is pretty darned fancy). Because it was lunchtime, the sidewalks were packed with people.A young man approached me and asked if I would like to "go behind that building over there" to "buy a stiletto."Even a hick from the stix realizes that there are better places to purchase quality cutlery than behind buildings in midtown Manhattan.So I told him that I thought that perhaps I should whomp him upside the head with my handy Totes umbrella, which I was carrying because it was a humid day and thunderstorms were predicted for later in the afternoon. He melted back into the crowd.The moral: To approach this case with the expectation that everybody everywhere be able to carry is inviting disappointment in the extreme. Because for those of us with true grit, a Totes umbrella can also work wonders, and causes much less fear among the populace than a shoulder holster.Anything ANYBODY writes, until the author of the Court's majority opinion lets loose, has all the staying power of a fart in a hurricane.Be not afraid. Wayne LaPierre and Sarah Brady want their respective constituencies to be afraid, because they need to keep raising money, so there will be much conjecture. In the meantime there are still two weeks of rifle season left in the Catskills and I prefer to think about post-rut buck routes.Before this Court does anything remotely sweeping with guns, they will strike down Roe v Wade.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from John wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Matt, I ride that same subway you do, and looking around, it makes me wish I COULD carry a gun to defend against some of those wackos, both "just in case" and in past real situations.NYC has one of the toughest processes to get one for your house - took me 4 months, 5 visits to 1 Police Plaza, $400 in fees, and tons of typewritten (who the hell has a typewriter anymore?!) paperwork & notarized signatures & letters of character reference and a personal interview.I doubt any wackos would be able to pass all of that inspection.Now having been scrutinized as such, the very least they could do is let me carry it, as I have more than proven my trustworthiness.But instead, no, I am still left defenseless against the wackos. Yah, that makes a lot of sense.NOT!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Matt M wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Hello Everyone-I see all these posts about big cities, and I ask how many of you are in a big city right now?I'm sitting in the middle of Manhatten and I am pretty glad that every wacko I see on the subway isn't carrying a gun. I understand both sides, and am a hunter who appreciates being able to have a gun.But lets be serious here. This issue isn't as black and white as you want to make it. Gun control in a rural area is completely different then gun control in an urban area.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Well put Alamo,I will consider anyone who puts legislation forth that preludes or enacts any gun control law as an enemy of the second amendment; regardless of party lines.I see evil in all colors, sexes and party affiliations.And I hope you get your wish as to the gun control thing being a non-starter.And Greg, I will put the stripes on with you mate. Nobody will take my guns without a fight.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

All I can say is if they ban hand guns where I live then I will be a criminal. Hopefully the supreme court will look at this rationally and not liberally!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I will and do make common cause with folks whom I may disagree with on other issues. Millions of Democrats are gun owners, hunters and shooters. What frustrates me is that many (including some who post here) would rather air their other political grievances than try and influence the national platform of the Democratic Party that invariably features a draconian gun contol plank.I was encouraged that some of the gains in legislative seats made by Dems were won by pro-gun candidates; Heath Shuler, Jim Webb and others. But until rank and file Dems reassert their influence and let the national party know that gun control is a non-starter, I will consider the Democratic Party an enemy of the Second Amendment.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alamo,And thank you for the honest, tempered response. I allow that you are a very intelligent man, and your words will do much more good with the tact you just demonstrated.We need your voice.So lets agree to disagree when we must, and debate hard when we must. Our common goals are much the same.I would also point out, that if your numbers are correct about the felons only making up 1.5% of the population; we need a better argument for keeping our guns. I mean, if we proud Americans can't stop 1.5% of any population with or without guns...Just 2 cts from a guy that loves his guns and his deer hunting and wants the best arguments put forth.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Alamo,I agree with you that the ultimate goal would be to disarm us. I understand the ins and outs of taking guns away from families, while the crooks keep them. I realize the crooks won't give them back. But consider this.If we agree that there are those that want to do such evil; that want to do things in such unsavory and unethical ways. Let us put aside party affiliations and do something about it. I realize Mike S. was being very sarcastic, and I share his disgust at the obvious points of disarming us - the law-abiding public, but we have to agree that if this is true, if there are circlesat work that wish their to be great harm to bring about their agendas; we need real action.Oil up them guns boys. This could get good - soon.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Tommy-Mike S. is exactly right. Our largest cities tend to have the most restrictive gun laws; prohibitions of ownnership or almost certainly the right to carry. Effectively this leaves the honest citizen defenseless whereas the common felon who has demonstrated a willingness to do violence has no qualms about arming himself.I'm sure the politicians who advocate confiscation will be happy to accept the arms of criminals who might turn them in. But felons make up roughly 1.5% of the poulation. The vast majority of firearms are owned by law abiding citizens, so in practice, who do gun control or confiscation efforts actually affect? Do you believe that the politicos are too stupid to realize this salient fact? No? Then their only true purpose is to ultimately disarm the law abiding citizens of this country.Think about it....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

This is a case of "Be careful of what you wish for!" if there ever was one! For both sides. For those posting above with "Undoubtably ..." I can't see any clear path to "undoubtably" with this court. The conservative side has it's big government advocates as does the liberal side. On the other hand we are not waiting for a possible Clinton, Obama, Guliani, Edwards Etc appointed Justice to be seated, to me that is good news.Skokie IL has had a gun ban since the 1970's and Chicago itself would not be considered a 2A friendly town either, San Francisco has bans as do many other cities in one way or other. Ironically The Court declined to hear an appeal of a ruling against Kennesaw GA when it passed a law Requiring all eligible heads of household to own at least one firearm.Hope against hope and let's see how this plays out!SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

OK. I will agree, gun laws hurt the law abiding folks. But the rest of the above post borders on lunacy."In most big cities in the US, law abiding citizens are almost totally disarmed"Do what?"They don't want criminals' guns; they want them all."I think the word "all" would encompass the criminal' guns as well. And insinuating that a group of people want the law-abiding peopleto be harmed is, well, a bit paranoid."These tend to be the same people who pass out condoms in elementary school, while seeking legislation criminalizing Americans who don't chew their food twenty times before swallowing."I think you are exagerating? Grossly?WTF?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

While this is an important case, the question before the SCOTUS seems very narrow in scope, namely:"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"It seems the court may only decide upon the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia (which is NOT a state, and whose laws and rules, while passed by a Mayor and Council, are subject to oversight by the US Congress.) I would not put a lot of hope and expectation on this one with regards to an absolute and final decision on the 2nd amendment. But, the SCOTUS has never failed to surprise in the past.Argument will be heard in March of 2008, decision issued in the summer.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Strehlow wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

The sad thing about gun laws is that they do work. In fact, they work great... on law abiding people. In most big cities in the US, law abiding citizens are almost totally disarmed. That's why an angry head case can walk into a McDonald's or a New York subway car and kill everybody in it; as most people are law abiding, nobody he meets will be armed.But here is a truth it took me years to see; that only law abiding people are disarmed is fine with the gun banners. They don't want criminals' guns; they want them all. These tend to be the same people who pass out condoms in elementary school, while seeking legislation criminalizing Americans who don't chew their food twenty times before swallowing. They just don't see that taking guns away undoes all of Col. Colt's efforts to make us all equal.Funny thing is, their ignorant, upside-down vote counts just as much as mine does. So they get politicians elected, who get laws passed. Make your vote count next November.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Tommy:I believe there are two Chicago suburbs that have gun bans. San Francisco recently enacted some type of gun infringement a couple of years ago.I too cannot believe that these bans have stood. There must be places where no one in certain cities hunts or shoots for a hobby.Thank the Good Lord I live here!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Just to clarify.I DO NOT THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE BANNED EITHER THE HANDGUN OR THE RIFLE.I just thought they would have started with ''rifles'' in DC.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Does anyone know if there are similar bans anywhere else in the country? If only in DC, I would be a bit confused.You would think they would have banned the ''long rifles'' first. I mean, what other part of the country should we be more worried about an assassination attempt?I would guess ''long rifles'', (dissassembled of course), like that is tough to overcome, would encompass high powered hunting rifles as well as ''black rifles''.This must have been part of the comprimise when the ban was enabled?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I think it's about time the Supreme Court showed some Bal*s and made a ruling on this issue once and for all. This country has far more important issues to discuss then gun ownership: Like health care,the war in Iraq, and our energy crisis!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jstreet wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I don't understand why the law in D.C. has stood this long?The 2nd Amendment is clear, just read it.I still think the left goes after ammo (with higher taxes and banning lead), gun ranges (with tougher zoning and environmental laws) and hunting (with higher license fees).Even if the Supreme Court sides with gun owners the fight is just beginning.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Maybe if every law abiding citizen in D.C. carried, enough perps could be neutralized so as to cut the frequency of repeat offenders.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

This was a story covered by CNN last week. That is where I got the crime rate bit from. They also surmised that this was just in time for the elections, and their ''experts'' did say they hoped it would pin some of the presidential candidates down on where they stood on guns.Let's see that. Right.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

I apologize for the multiple posts above. Don't know what the problem was.I for one welcome the SCOTUS decision to consider the Heller case. I believe that at the least the "militia" / "people" argument will be settled. Considering the conclusions pronounced in the most recent scholarly work on the subject, I can only see the court affirming the individual's right.The status of the district may offer an opportunity to avoid a comprehensive ruling as some have noted, but I think it likely they will rule on the collective v. individual right issue.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Benjamin Packard wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

AMEN!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tommy wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

In light of the fact that crime rates, and violent crimes in general, are reported to have risen since the 70's in DC, when this ban was enacted, I would say it is about time for it to be overturned.I hope this will be a victory for the small guy. The individual, law-abiding gun owner.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Mark in the first post makes me feel alittle better. How crazy is this that its even an issue before the supreme court? SCARY #$%^&^%$$

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

IT'S ON!!!!!The leftys will crawl out of the woodwork now Dave......

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

IT'S ON!!!!!The leftys will crawl out of the woodwork now Dave......

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alamo wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

IT'S ON!!!!!The leftys will crawl out of the woodwork now Dave......

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Garrett wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

This is seriously offensive to me. Im sure to the rest of you too. I hope this decision is reversed. If it isnt we all are in serious trouble. I will not give up my handguns or disassemble my long guns. They forcibly have to be taken away from me. I could not be more serious!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

Oops. That was me in the above post. So worked up I forgot to sign my handle.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Visitor wrote 6 years 20 weeks ago

If anyone is looking for the first, final, and ultimate ruling on the 2nd Amendment from the Supreme Court in 2008, think again. I’m willing to lay odds the Court will affirm the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, but will reaffirm use of the Crying-Fire-In-A-Theater argument for letting the states set some conditions and qualifications on this individual right/freedom. In the bottom line, not much will really change.The real importance is not allowing trendy, temporal, social whims fiddle too much with the Constitution. If you can “modify” the 2nd Amendment to present whims why stop there? Why not the Fourth and Fifth? Outlawing Slavery? Obsolete, as is Women’s right to vote. WE don’t need those amendments now…..or so could be the argument.Gotta get back to work, and do some more deer and goose hunting

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs