Ban assault weapons, before it’s too late

It is disturbing to read that a cult militia sought to arm themselves with deadly weapons and to train its members to kill scores of people, including law enforcement officials, based on a sick and twisted interpretation of the Christian faith.

Their arrest is more proof that home-grown hate groups can easily arm themselves with some of the most deadly artillery available, such as military-style assault weapons, powerful handguns and other dangerous tools of mass destruction.

As an economic crisis drives fear and heat to a boiling pitch, we depend on sensible federal gun laws to prevent dangerous hate groups from possessing the deadly weapons they need to terrorize.

It will take Congress and the Obama administration to face down the terrorism threat enabled by America's weak gun laws. America's safety and security continues to be at grave risk until we ban the sale of all military-style assault weapons, such as AK-47s and .50 caliber sniper rifles, and require criminal background checks on every firearm sold. Ultimately, it will take comprehensive federal legislation to repel this danger and improve homeland security.

Comments

Draw Stranger!

It is disturbing to read that a cult militia sought to arm themselves with deadly weapons * roxanne

You are darn right that is disturbing news since 4 of the stupid fools were inside FBI informers while the other 5 had just failed a bible test on naming the first book of the Bible.......

This is not the time to disarmed ourselves since the country is hanging on by a thread and we progressives should be like our brothers and sisters of the 60's and armed to the teeth, even if it means having a pocket nuke in the basement to fight off the Nazi fascist threat of the American Corporate Police State...

Power To The People! Che lives!!!!

This will be an interesting test of the judicial system

I have read some reports on these arrests and unless there is some kind of actual threat that was proposed or issued or unless there is evidence that there was an actual plot formulated, I do not see this as going forward. I admit that I do not know the whole story and I am sure there is far more to this than what is being reported. I believe everything has not been made public yet.

We definately do not want our justice system to begin arresting people for having a "possibilty" of doing harm to others. This would be the beginning of a very bad precedent in that regard. Hopefully these people, as evil and despicable as they appear, were not arrested because they only had the availability to do deadly harm or were spewing rhetoric against the government and so forth.

Somehow I do not think this is the case and hopefully I am right. If not, our government is moving in a direction none of us wants to see it go in.

Interesting USA Today poll

USA Today is taking a poll on the 2nd amendment with regard to the right to bear arms.

If interested, take the poll and see how those that responded voted. This is NOT a scientific poll. It is just a depiction of how those that took it responded, nothing more.

It does speak to the issue for some, however.

Here's the poll.

Vote or Armed Poll results

Results of USA free for all Poll!

Does the Second Amendent give individuals the right to bear arms?

Yes..97 %

No..2%

Undecided...1%

Total Votes 6,456,467 million voters* Note Disclaimer

3,987,908 votes were from the Nation of Iraq who voted yes
2,257,897 votes were from the Nation of Agahanstan who voted yes
23 votes were from the Nation Iran who voted no
300,000 votes were from the Tea Parties of America who voted yes
1 vote was from the Mother Therase society of India who voted no
And finally, The Venus society of America [ A free love patriot society] had 456 votes yes for self defense in marriage disputs

Roxane Needs A Library Card!

Can we all pitch together and encourage Roxane to get herself a library card before it is too late!
Roxane should really do herself a favor and do some real fact checking on this issue. Read the Federalist Papers and other opinions and facts in reference to the Right to Bear Arms and why it is important to secure all of our liberty.
Gun control never prevents whackos and thugs from getting weapons - FACT!
Gun control would only serve to disarm law abiding Citizens (the majority) and prevent them from being able to defend themselves from those that would harm us - FACT!
The Right to Bear Arms also serves as a deterrent to despotism and tyranny, to include serving as "checks and balances" to our own government. All tyrants and dictators, such as Hitler and Mussolini and many others, were gun control advocates.
True liberals support and defend the Right to Bear Arms, since none of us want to give up our freedom to live life as we please. I don't need a tyrannical Republican or despotic Democrat telling me how I ought to live my life, how to worship, if I desire to, or anything else.
Fortunately for the rest of us, Roxane is in the extreme minority, and is simply in the need for more self study and education, which can easily be rectified with a "free" library card. We can only hope she takes advantage of our excellent library system.

believe me she has a library card

Believe me she has a library card, the woman is dragging me down to that library every other day. She reads more than I drink.

Regarding your FACTS!:

Gun control never prevents whackos and thugs from getting weapons

Most guns used in crimes in Mexico are purchased in the United States. Most guns used in crimes in New Jersey are purchased in North Carolina. It is silly to pretend that preventing crime is an impossible task.

Gun control would only serve to disarm law abiding Citizens (the majority) and prevent them from being able to defend themselves from those that would harm us.

It is more likely that your children will accidentally kill themselves with your weapons than that you will use them to defend yourself from a criminal.

The Right to Bear Arms also serves as a deterrent to despotism and tyranny, to include serving as "checks and balances" to our own government. All tyrants and dictators, such as Hitler and Mussolini and many others, were gun control advocates.

First person to reference Hitles loses. You lose. Plus most government weaponry is already illegal - try to purchase an Apache helicopter and get back to me.

True liberals support and defend the Right to Bear Arms, since none of us want to give up our freedom to live life as we please. I don't need a tyrannical Republican or despotic Democrat telling me how I ought to live my life, how to worship, if I desire to, or anything else.

Dude, your home owners association or credit agency is doing more to compromise your freedom than any crime preventation legislation ever could. If you want to live in a society free of government interference I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Roxane is in the extreme minority, and is simply in the need for more self study and education, which can easily be rectified with a "free" library card. We can only hope she takes advantage of our excellent library system.

Roxane is in the quiet majority. The GOP can't pay a pollster to prove that common sense gun safety laws are unpopular. Domestic terrorists and common criminals continue to benefit from the Democratic party's eternal hope that if we suck up to NRA thugs they will stop behaving like the partisan hacks they truly are. Sen. Hagan will spend the next 5 years serving the NRA only to find her opponent heavily backed the gun industry.

Nobody makes any money when a child's death is prevented. But every weapon sold to a criminal puts money in the pocket of the gun boys. Corporate democracy will continue to protect its sponsors.

You Proved My Point!

"Most guns used in crimes in Mexico are purchased in the United States. Most guns used in crimes in New Jersey are purchased in North Carolina."

Then you and I are in complete agreement. Thugs will go wherever needed to get weapons, to include neighboring countries and off coast. I suppose what you propose would be world-wide gun control? Let's call them the Earth Police; catchy.

"It is more likely that your children will accidentally kill themselves with your weapons than that you will use them to defend yourself from a criminal."

Actually, it is more likely, by a large percentage, that we'll all die in automobile accidents. This logic dictates that the Earth Police also confiscate everyone's cars and forces us all to walk. No thanks.

"First person to reference Hitles loses."

I was hoping to discuss this issue with someone that had, at least, graduated high school. No problem. I do, sometimes, enjoy hide and seek with the kids. I'm no fan of Hitler, either. But, you share his views on this subject, not me.

"Dude, your home owners association or credit agency is doing more to compromise your freedom than any crime preventation legislation ever could. If you want to live in a society free of government interference I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year."

I like the "dude" part best. Set the doobie down for a minute and take notes. It's called consent of the governed. My neighbors and I are involved in our home owners association. It is "from, by, and of" the neighbors. Credit agencies only hamper the lives of consumers that, first, don't know how to manage and maintain their credit. Do yourself a favor and use cash. I think I'm beginning to understand why you would find homeowners associations and credit reporting agencies a problem. As far as Somalia, another childish remark. Have you been there? My guess is "not".

"The GOP can't pay a pollster to prove that common sense gun safety laws are unpopular."

Who cares what the GOP does or doesn't do. They're just another group of Kool-Aid drinkers. You're not staying on topic, my friend. Roxane isn't talking about "common sense gun safety laws". I, for one, always think that those that choose to purchase firearms ought to take advantage of available classes and learn to not only secure their weapons in a safe and responsible manner, but also to shoot straight when necessary. Neither Roxane, nor I, were discussing "Apache attack helicopters", but I must admit, I'd enjoy taking a ride in one.

Hard Facts For Jermiee and Frank! Obama/Bush New Police State?

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration’s effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies of former President George W. Bush.
...
The ruling delivered a blow to the Bush administration’s claims that its surveillance program, which Mr. Bush secretly authorized shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was lawful. Under the program, the National Security Agency monitored Americans’ international e-mail messages and phone calls without court approval, even though the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, required warrants.
...
[Plaintiff's attorney] Jon Eisenberg, said Judge Walker’s ruling was an “implicit repudiation of the Bush-Cheney theory of executive power.”

“Judge Walker is saying that FISA and federal statutes like it are not optional,” Mr. Eisenberg said. “The president, just like any other citizen of the United States, is bound by the law. Obeying Congressional legislation shouldn’t be optional with the president of the U.S.”
...
The ruling is the second time a federal judge has declared the program of wiretapping without warrants to be illegal.
...
But Judge [Vaughn R.] Walker limited liability in the case to the government as an institution, rejecting the lawsuit’s effort to hold Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, personally liable.

So, it was illegal, as long argued. Yet nobody will go to jail for it, naturally, because Presidents, particularly George W. Bush, and their men, though theoretically "bound by the law," as Eisenberg says, are still above the law, apparently.

For you Tea Baggers: The comment section below is open so that you can let us hear your arguments as to why you believe that Barack Obama should be allowed to violate the law and the Constitution in order to read your emails and listen to your phone calls, at any time, and for whatever reason he chooses, without ever receiving court approval, the way you used to argue that Bush was allowed to do.

For you non-Tea Baggers in the reality-based world: We'll note here that the Judge in this case also, thankfully, rejected the DoJ's attempt to invoke the so-called "State Secrets Privilege" as "first asserted by the Bush administration and continued under President Obama."

The SSP is what the Bush Administration had twice used to gag FBI whistelblower Sibel Edmonds for so many years, successfully ensuring that her case would never see the light of day in a court of law, despite her appealing the Administration's use of the draconian and (previously) rarely-invoked "privilege" all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Can we assume then that the "State Secrets" the Bush Administration was hoping to keep from seeing the light of day in the Edmonds case were even more of a national security threat than exposing the fact that the Government was spying, illegally, on anybody in this country that they wanted to?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7779

Not a "teabagger" but would respond anyway

For you Tea Baggers: The comment section below is open so that you can let us hear your arguments as to why you believe that Barack Obama should be allowed to violate the law and the Constitution in order to read your emails and listen to your phone calls, at any time, and for whatever reason he chooses, without ever receiving court approval, the way you used to argue that Bush was allowed to do.

"Change you can believe in" comes to mind. Was that just a slogan to get elected?

Bear Hunting with a library Card?

We can only hope she takes advantage of our excellent library system*nc thinker

You are aware that the FBI hangs around the Librarys of America and knows every book you check out without a warrent, Thanks to Bush 2 and the Patriot ACT 1 and 2 and with present approval of Act 3 by the Obama Justice Department. No doubt you want Roxane gagged, bag and shipped to the nearest federal detention center for checking out the book " Danial Boone hunting habits in Western North Carolina without the King approval"

Gagged, Bagged & Tagged

Ha.... excellent! I'm always amazed on how Obama and Bush are beginning to look more and more like "brothers from different mothers". It proves my point that there isn't a nickel's difference between most of the Republocrats. They simply fight one another for who gets to coerce the People.

If checking out "questionable" books were a crime, I would have been "gagged, bagged, and tagged" long ago. Telling me "not to read" something is the probably the best way to get me to check it out. Too many books, not enough time.

Paranoid much?

The amount of paranoia oozing from just a few comments on this posting is troubling. So a few brief points instead.

  1. Opinions are not "FACT"s.
  2. A study of the literature of the period demonstrates that the right to bear arms is, in fact, a "deterrent to despotism and tyranny", when such arms are held within a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". There are very important reasons why the Founders included the words regulated and State (not individual).
  3. The closest this country has come to "hanging on by a thread" in the last quarter century was only immediately after Hurricane Katrina and only in the environs of New Orleans. Odds are, most of our neighborhoods are safer than most other places on Earth.
  4. People are arrested for "having a "possibilty" of doing harm to others" all the time. It's called criminal conspiracy. It's the crime for which Zacarias Moussaoui was tried and convicted, and for which he now serves six consecutive life sentences.
  5. I'm sorry, MadameJusticeWatch, but you are full of crap. Find some facts and then you can come back and play.
  6. And I'm not sorry, ncThinker, when I say it's time to give your screen name back. Roxane is more educated on this issue than you could possibly imagine. And while what she writes is her opinion, and her advocacy position, it is grounded in facts.
  7. No one person has the authority to define what a "true" liberal would believe. People citing this as the first point in their argument seldom have a second.
  8. American in 2010 is not "Escape from L.A." No "law abiding Citizen" needs an AK-47 or a .50 caliber sniper rifle to adequately defend himself, his family, and his property.
  9. None of us is "aware" of the FBI hanging around libraries and knowing every book we check out without a warrant. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows for library records to be viewed as part of an investigation. But in its first two years, it was never used. Again, find some facts, then you can come back and play.
  10. Godwin is pissed that you disproved his law. Hitler references are only allowed after the y^(n-1)th comment has been posted.

That is all.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. ~~ Salvor Hardin

Drill Baby! Drill Frank!

3.The closest this country has come to "hanging on by a thread" in the last quarter century was only immediately after Hurricane Katrina and only in the environs of New Orleans. Odds are, most of our neighborhoods are safer than most other places on Earth* Frank Thomas

LOL.....So after Katrina the USA is living in a Republican and Democrat Paradise? It appears that you either don't read or watch the mainstream establishment media networks too much or simply believe that Jesus has return and restore his Kingdom that stop 11 million Home forclosers, house the poor, feed the world, Stop all unconsitutional wars, Put everybody back to work last week, and finally held a banquet in the White House to drill baby, drill baby!

5.I'm sorry, MadameJusticeWatch, but you are full of crap. Find some facts and then you can come back and play.* Frank Thomas

Good for you Frank! Nothing like a establishment suck up idiot who simply goes personal and forgets what facts are in Reality?

As usual, any discussion of guns brings out a lot of comments.

I agree with Roxane that assault weapons and .50 cal rifles are inappropriate for sale to private individuals. No "sportsman" needs an assault rifle to hunt...and those I know who are true "sportsmen" (i.e., they don't hunt for the pleasure of killing and eat what they kill) sneer at the whacked out, camo-clothed AR15 carrying deer hunters. No sportsman needs a Barrett .50 cal weapon sniper rifle that will trash a humvee at a range of over a mile.

That said, I support the individual's right to own firearms.

The NRA has become a refuge for loonies. The convention this year will feature Glenn Beck, Newt the Fruit, and REV Jonathan Falwell...the son of the man who, if given an enema before burial, could have been buried in a match box.

Stan Bozarth

Needing the Definition of "Needs"

Stan & Roxane, if you would be so kind as to consider a "liberal" opinion with regards to the issue. First of all, I'm not a weapons enthusiast, so it's not like I'm trying to protect a personal arsenal, simply discussing basic principles.

Someone, perhaps Stan, mentioned the "militia". From what I've read, the original intent, and universally accepted definition of the "militia" has always been ALL able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 50, free of mental disability or any other issue that would preclude service. The militia could be activated for any number or reasons based off need of the community and/or the governor.

And then there was Stan's, "No sportsman needs..." comment which always causes sirens to go off in the head of a liberal. Who gets to determine "need"? Stan? Some bureaucrat somewhere? Personally, if a group of crazy people from Michigan, or elsewhere, decide to raid my home in order to initiate their so-called "religious war", I think enough assault rifles so every member of my household can be equipped to defend themselves, is not only prudent, but necessary. Like it or not, there are some crazy whackos out there, and let's quit pretending that law enforcement is the sole answer, because it isn't and never will be. The militia is, and always has been, the answer to thugs and crazy whackos, such as those described recently in Michigan. Besides, a well armed militia is a lot cheaper on the tax payer as well. Why hire, train, and equip someone when there are plenty of law abiding Citizens willing to guarantee our liberty for free?

A law abiding Citizen can own a inter-continental ballistic missile and it wouldn't matter since they're LAW ABIDING. Of course, an ICBM is an exaggeration, since average Citizens can't afford such. However, Citizens own tanks, trucks, and a whole variety of other military hardware to include 'evil' automatic weapons, etc. without issue. Who am I to determine what someone else "needs" or simply "desires"?

Good Lord

Do you honestly believe it's legal for a citizen to own a nuclear weapon, much less one with an intercontinental delivery system? Have you been smoking the kind bud, or what?

Setting aside international laws we've committed to in our signage of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, here's U.S. Code, Title 42, Statute 2122:

It shall be unlawful, except as provided in section 2121 of this title, for any person, inside or outside of the United States, to knowingly participate in the development of, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use, any atomic weapon. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to modify the provisions of section 2051 (a) or 2131 of this title.

Praise The Lord and Pass The Nuke?

Sorry! American Citizens are not binded by International law according to the Consitution of the United States if their life, liberty and property is threaten by foreign government agreedments or international treaties..ie,,.1 st amendment, freedom of speech, so forth and on and the 2 nd ammendment simply says if the 1 st is supress by foreign and internal enemies, the peoples have the right to enforce the 1 st by using the 2nd as the enforcement tool..As you can see, it certainly makes political want to be dictators a little nervous about this little loophole in the Consitution..

As to owning Nukes by individuals, it is no big deal according the consitition since it requires no limits to type of defensive or offensive weapon that individual decides to use in this matter, however this little process in owning a Nuke requires a approval process from the Atomic Energy Commission Act of 1946 by Congress. It simply says that they must approve the process it in which the individual developes the process and how the individual makes the Nuke without harm to other citizens and their property or the State property.

In short this was the first Environmental law after WW2 believe it or not.......However the trick is to get the licence from the Atomic Energy Commission by the individual, so far no individual licence has ever been issue in the history of the Commission since only Power and electial Corporations have aquire the licences in it's past history.....You are free to apply as a individual and it requires a 20 million dollar deposit [non-refundable] while your app is being process and subject to approval.

Good luck and make damn sure you don't tell them that you belong to the Republican Tea Party movement or run a Muslin Boarding House for homeless Muslins in Detriot..

ps....stop saying Pot smokers want nukes with their Potato BBQ Chips

Selective Reading Anyone?

Whoa, cowboy! Why you going "nuclear" on everyone?

The ICBM reference had nothing to do with the substance of the post, rather than to support the contention that LAW ABIDING Citizens can own whatever they so desire, because they aren't a danger to anyone. It would be impossible for a LAW ABIDING Citizen to violate the law, otherwise they wouldn't be LAW ABIDING. Nobody said anything about "nukes". BTW, missiles aren't nuclear until someone actually emplaces the warhead(s) into the missiles; they are separate components.

Here's an idea. How about actually commenting on the substance of the post rather than making crazy stuff up?

After due consideration of your thoughtful comments

I bow to your superior, knowledgeable talk-radiio opinions.

Please....arm yourself with automatic weapons. Don't get assault rifles. An M60 is more effective...you can change the barrel when it gets too hot after obliterating any home intruders...and the 7.62 is a more effective load. You might also consider a nice grenade launcher or LAW for tougher home defense situations. Be sure to find out which end is which afore you pull the trigger thingy.

I didn't mention the militia, but yes...by all means. Never mind that law enforcement and war are entirely different matters.

Stan Bozarth

Who Has Time for Talk Radio?

Thanks, Stan.

I'll consider your recommendations. However, I don't find it prudent right now to divert funds to such extravagance. After all, the kids would probably enjoy a new in-ground swimming pool rather than wasting money on an armory.

As for the militia, they were, and still can be, used for both.

So, you want to limit the calibre of weapons owned?

Stan, I did some Goggle Searching about the 50-cal weaponry and saw that it is, indeed, a very lethal weapon. Are you saying you are wanting the government to determine what calibre weapons people in the U.S. should own? Where would be your drawing line? 30-cal? 45-cal? And, then, with that being done and with that law in effect, where will it stop depending on the make-up in the congress? Would it be a means to the end and that end being the elimination of any kind of gun except possibly a CO2-powered BB gun? I see this as a steady progression that would ultimately be laws that essentially took away the rights under the 2nd amendment.

And people refer to talk radio as "hate speech"

Goodness, Stan. This is far worse than I have heard from Rush and Bortz and Beck.

The NRA has become a refuge for loonies. The convention this year will feature Glenn Beck, Newt the Fruit, and REV Jonathan Falwell...the son of the man who, if given an enema before burial, could have been buried in a match box.

Or it is at least as much "trash-talk". When you want to put out disparaging remarks about what you call the "hate speech" networks, you would be well advised to avoid doing it yourself. It just lessens the impact.

Hate NFL Team Jackets for Sell?

The NRA has become a refuge for loonies. The convention this year will feature Glenn Beck, Newt the Fruit, and REV Jonathan Falwell...the son of the man who, if given an enema before burial, could have been buried in a match box. * Somebody

Sounds like a great place to set up a booth and sell straight jackets with that pack of loonies moving around at the NRA meeting!

Somebody?

All your posts that show the actual poster and this one is....."

* Somebody

"?

Kissy, kissy, MadameJusticeWatch

Somebody beat the crap out of a Tea Party Bunny?

Kissy, kissy, MadameJusticeWatch* JBradly

I hope you can explain to the Police where you were when this happen?

Easter Bunny thrown to ground outside New York candy store!

Somebody beat up the Easter Tea Party Bunny.

.The rabbit – a 46-year-old woman in a white Easter Bunny costume – told police she was standing outside the Alps Sweet Shoppe in Fishkill, N.Y., when a man slammed her to the ground and then ran away, according to a report from the Associated Press.

The bunny was out there to promote the candy store, the AP said.

The woman told the AP she was not seriously hurt in the attack, which happened Wednesday afternoon.

State police are looking for the man, who is described as being about 65 years old with Nazi blond hair. He was wearing pink underware, a white T-shirt that said " Don't stomp on me" and a Yellow Pittsburg Steelers, unzippered sweat shirt, along with sweat pants with holes in the couch. the AP said.

A Spokensperson for the Pope said " This is clearly a example of how the New York Times has stirred Cult Sun Tea Party worshipers to created harm to animals and we think it is "somebody" who belongs to a secret society of Gays that wants payback.

MadamJusticeWatch, you will like this

Go HERE to see a really good interview with Ted Nugent on this issue.

I likes it. HAHA.

I don't recall saying anything about hate speech

or hate speech networks. Surely it must be that you want to talk about it...so please do. And thanks for advising me on what I didn't say.

(As an NRA member for many years...it used to encourage gun safety, training, and marksmanship and is still a good source for ballistics and load info for serious shooters..... I've witnessed it's evolution into what it has become. I am no longer affiliated. What are your qualifications to say it isn't so?)

Stan Bozarth

Not gonna happen

A large part of the 1994 Republican takeover in Congress can be attributed to backlash over Clinton's gun control policies. It is already nearly impossible to find ammunition for a number of handgun calibers due to speculation that Obama will enact bans or huge taxes on various weapons or types of ammunition.

Taking on the type of gun control measures you are suggesting would probably be the best way for Obama to guarantee he does not have a second term. Congress could flip too. Right or wrong, it is the situation.

I don't hunt, but I have a number of firearms, including a dreaded "assault rifle." Some of them I bought and some I inherited. In addition to protection of my home, I mainly own firearms because it is fun to shoot them. I shoot at targets.

Do I "need" all of the weapons I have? No, I don't "need" them any more than someone "needs" water skis. I will say, however, that it is probably easier to justify owing a gun (personal protection to start with) than it is to justify owning water skis. It always bothers me when anti-gunners insist that gun owners justify their ownership of certain firearms but don't insist on equally fair justifications of things that exceed the minimum of what is "necessary" (cars that go faster than the speed limit, homes with yards, etc.)

And it bothers me

when people engage in spurious equivalency, like comparing guns to water skis, or citizens openly displaying firearms in public to cops doing the same.

They're not equal, and efforts to paint them as such are just as threatening to 2nd Amendment rights as the radical "get rid of guns completely" crowd.

Anti-gunsters have the same arguments

I find myself with a WTF smirk on myself whenever I see the anti-gun people pretend they aren't anti-gun but just want to "limit" guns in some way. If you ask most of them if they would be in favor of a total gun ban, they would admit they would be but say: "but, that probably isn't possible". So, they say they "accept" a certain amount of gun ownership, but believe that a limit on how many guns and what kinds of guns a citizen should be "allowed" to own would be acceptable. I agree with them on that, with exceptions.

Now, not even the NRA is in favor of people owning fully automatic weapons (something that is already against the law) or weapons like grenade launchers and so forth (which are also already against the law). But, who is to say how many guns a citizen owns is too many? The government? How would they determine that? What is the precedent for deciding that?

I am not an NRA member and I do not hunt. We do have weapons in our home and probably far more than the anti-gunsters would consider "reasonable". Some are collector's items. Some are my husband's father's. One is a .22 rifle my husband's father gave to him when he turned 16. Two are "investment weapons" that I can't describe here or tell you about as I am not into that kind of thing, actually. Safe to say it is over a dozen. I am sure that is "too many" to the anti-gunsters.

My point is that guns have been a part of the American way of life for centuries. Yes, they have been used to murder people and yes, there needs to be "control" as in registering and in the case of concealed carry, those people should follow the existing law on that and it is a very good law, indeed.

If people are against all gun ownership in America, I would like for them to own up to it and not try to get laws put in place that would essentially rid us of the rights and privileges of the 2nd amendment by saying "well, yeah, some gun ownership is okay, but it should be made so difficult so as to make it impossible to own a gun". That's a back-door effort to go against the 2nd amendment, no matter how you look at it.

Lets talk about guns...and why people own and use them

Long guns...

Many people who own a larger caliber rifle are or were hunters. The guns are typically not equipped with high capacity magazines nor are they semi-auomatic. Most are bolt action or pump. Hunters usually achieve success with their first shot...or not at all. It's unsafe (if not also unethical) to follow a bounding buck with a fusillade from one's 20-30 round magazine semi-auto rifle. The only reason, other than just for the fun of shooting, for a long gun with a high capacity magazine is to use it as a weapon to kill other people. That's why such guns were developed...and they do their job with horrible efficiency. I question why my neighbor needs such a weapon. I question if he/she actually understands that if he/she fired this gun in their home (the oft used self-defense thing) and missed the mark they'd likely take out a sleeping neighbor across the street. Regarding caliber: There are lots of hunting guns on the market with exceptional take-down power at ranges even up to 500-700 yards...in the hands of a skilled marksman. Most are intended for use at 100 - 200 yds. A 50 caliber has an effective range of well over 1500 meters. With a uranium slug it will take out an armored vehicle. This is not a sporting rifle. Further, anyone using such a rifle regularly would have to be a glutton for punishment....and wealthy. One last area of consideration is barrel length. Short barreled high caliber weapons are not accurate. They are more easily concealed and easier to handle in confined spaces. Again...the purpose of such modifications is to allow the efficient killing of other humans. Why does my neighbor want such a weapon? Is it reasonable to control barrel length? I think so.

Handguns: There is no handgun on the market (possible exception a .223 single shot) intended for hunting. These are defensive weapons, or an accessory offensive weapon in the case one's rifle malfunctions. In the hands of the deranged or criminal, handguns become easily concealed instruments of death. Modern handguns come in a variety of calibers and are usually either auto-loading or revolvers. Many newer auto-loading handguns do not have a safety switch. Modeled after the Glock, these guns have a safety trigger within the trigger. Anyone handling a modern handgun (or any firearm) should always assume there is a round chambered and not point the weapon unless they intend to use it. (Doing so to someone is also considered assault with a deadly weapon - even if the trigger isn't pulled.) Unless in the hands of a skilled shooter, the typical handgun isn't often used on targets beyond 25 feet. Some handguns are now chambered for loads that are preposterously heavy. They make Dirty Harry's .40 Magnum look like a peashooter. Again...what are these things intended to do?
Mostly, my guess, to penetrate an armored vest. Do you want or need one?

BTW, anyone looking for a good home defense weapon couldn't do better than a 12 ga pump shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. There is no more intimidating sound than that of a pump action racking a round into the chamber. Any sane person would flee just hearing that noise.

I'm all for the freedom of gun ownership. I enjoy shooting. I do not hunt. It is my opinion that certain weapons have no place in one's home inventory....simply because of their intended use. If, like the Swiss, we had a real "militia" then ownership of such guns would be useful for the intended purpose. People would also be trained on how to use and maintain such weapons.

Gun ownership doesn't have to all or nothing. It can be sensible and reasonable. The problem is, those who we charge with creating such laws are usually leaning too far one way or another and so we hear the threat of either losing our rights...or a society populated with assault rifle-toting nuts.

To my knowledge, one cannot (legally) purchase a handgun without a background check. A long gun requires no such check. I believe any larger caliber long gun equipped with a high capacity magazine should require a background check and serial number registration. Certain types of ammunition should also be restricted. Why does a private citizen want "cop-killer" pistol ammo? As an aside, anyone using a pistol for "home defense" would be smart to consider purchasing frangible ammunition.

Stan Bozarth

Very good presentation, Stan

The vast majority of that is dead on, I have to say.

For me and my family, we have weapons in our home for self defense and some as investments and some out of inheretance, simple as that. None are "cop killers" and the like.

I do not know how to "control" the size and calibre and so forth on weapons owned by individuals. I think we have a great many laws that do control that now. I do not know how well they are enforced, however. And, there are always ways around laws..that is where criminals come in so no matter what kind of laws and so forth we have, the criminals will find a way.

If someone threatens my family at my home, they will probably not come out on the winning end of that..that is my reason for gun ownership.

Signs of Warning?

If people are against all gun ownership in America, I would like for them to own up to it and not try to get laws put in place * JBradly

Naw! All the anti-gunners have to do is simply put a sign in their front yard that says

" Warning! The Owner of this property does not have any Weapons on this property"

I like it

You are usually a bona-fide nutcase here, but that is excellent.

Nice, MadameJusticeWatch.

Someone said here:

It is more likely that your children will accidentally kill themselves with your weapons than that you will use them to defend yourself from a criminal.

uh, does anyone think that statement is true BECAUSE there are weapons to defend ourselves around? It is just such an "oldie" argument. I have read that said for AT LEAST 20 years. It isn't about the guns being in the households, it is about the parents being responsible. But, since it is a gun, it is the gun's fault.

Reality vs Stupid Ego?

You are usually a bona-fide nutcase here, but that is excellent.*JBradley

Not really! You and ncthinker are in a neck and neck race with other for the Republican Tea Party disinformation championship. No doubt it will be a tie since you and ncthinker are of the same split Republican mind set psychopath personality when it comes to parading around on a Progressive site thinking you are pissing on their parade with the truth.

Do you really believe that people are more stupid when you call them looney or simply have you started believing your own posts on how smart you are when you read your own posts?

You do understand that old sports quote! " When you start to believe your own press cliping, you are in trouble"

You may enrolled in my amazing reverse political therapy classes by simply leaving one gold coin at the door..

Muddle-Headed Post

Republican Tea Party? As if they have answers, ...puhleease!

Let me see if I got this right, madame. The Republicans are filing useless lawsuits against the HCR legislation even though they know their argument isn't worth the paper they're written on for the sole purpose of getting the Tea Party vote, and you think this political ridiculousness is MY position or ideology?

You're embarrassing yourself, madame. I think Republocrats are a threat to MY liberty! Oh, and yours too, but I'll assume you're smart enough to figure that out yourself. Besides, I've never swallowed the mythological Lincoln Kool-Aid; a requirement of the GOP.

Mud and the Sons of The South are on the move again?

Besides, I've never swallowed the mythological Lincoln Kool-Aid; a requirement of the GOP.*nc thinker

So how long have you been a Private in the "League of the South" movement? You do understand that you lost the last time? And besides how many divisions do you have to seize Lincoln Body again?

And stop telling me that the Repubcrats plan to steal my life, liberty and property since they did that long ago!

Your Public Education is Showing Again.

Madame, it appears you are nothing more than a simple member of the majority, a Pre-Thinker; limited to regurgitating pre-thought thoughts that someone has filled your head with in the government's public school system. The "League of the What?" I am a Citizen of California since that is where I was born and reared as a child. The only "leagues" I recall were Unions, etc..

So let me get this straight. You've bought the whole Lincoln as your personal savior nonsense, and one would have to live in Charleston, SC, dress up like a Confederate soldier and run around on old battlefields entertaining tourists, in order to recognize that the 16th president was a bona fide racist?

You and Roxane have got to get yourselves a library card. Oh, and by the way, they have libraries in California, too.

In the end, the sourse of all knowledge is

The Onion.

-b
---------

There cannot fail to be more kinds of things, as nature grows further disclosed. - Sir Francis Bacon

Ok that went poorly :)

I deemand the freedom to maik my own words.

sourse = sour sauce

The tyranny of the dictionary must end!

-b

--

There cannot fail to be more kinds of things, as nature grows further disclosed. - Sir Francis Bacon

:)

Don't you just love proofreading in public.

Happy Friday.

Sociopaths vs. Personal Responsibility

From reading these posts, it seems to me that the proponents of gun control don't believe in a society that emphasizes personal responsibility, functioning free from organized institutions of coercion. Granted, perfect harmony is not an option for imperfect human beings. Social order, however, is possible without the state. In fact, the state is so dangerous because it necessarily draws the sociopaths – who like coercion – to itself. Just read some of these posts!

What holds society together is not a bunch of strict laws and a brutal police force – it's basically peer pressure, moral suasion, and social opprobrium. Look at a restaurant. The bills get paid not because anybody is afraid of the police, but for the reasons mentioned. It's like when people form lines at movie theaters or ski lifts. There doesn't have to be a cop with a gun there to make everyone take turns. Everyone knows that if they take turns, it all works out better for everyone – and they are brought up to act that way, so they usually don't even have to make that calculation.

As Pareto's Law indicates, there's inevitably a bad element in most places. 80% of folks are truly decent, and 20% are perhaps problematical. And 20% of that 20% are bad apples. You have to have a culture that keeps them hiding under rocks, rather than rising to the top – as they wind up doing quite often in government.

The reaction of a person to the idea of a truly free society is an excellent moral litmus test. The more negative the reaction, the more likely you're dealing with a sociopath. Keep in mind that those comprising members of government, are simply a segment of society. Why would anyone want their neighbor involved in coercion, basically bullying everyone in the neighborhood, dictating what everyone ought, and ought not be doing.

I'll venture to say, if some of the opinions posted here claim to be "progressive" or "liberal", they appear to be everything but, and actually rather "regressive", since the history of mankind, with our various forms of government, are full of like examples.

Good luck with that post, ncThinker

Most of the people that post here will either avoid responding to your post or will just let it go "out" (as I like to say), which means it will eventually just not be shown on the main page after enough other posts are made.

Another thing that might happen is that sharrison or james will have some kind of rebuttal that will be mutually accepted by the majority here.

I see your point, so you are not alone.

Will this be our future?

Hopefully this will not become more than just a picture:

Photobucket

Sorry. This is not welcome here.

Let me be clear about a few things.

BlueNC is a company, a website and a community. I own the first two, the community runs itself.

If I were to describe our general purpose, it would be the pursuit of wisdom, fairness and excellence in all aspects of life. Government, personal responsibility, private enterprise, charity, religion, art, education. These are all threads of the fabric of our society, interdependent in every way.

If you want to contribute to this pursuit with constructive ideas and insights, please do. If your main purpose is to mock and obstruct, please go somewhere else.

I understand

I apologize. I guess i am as much a part of the problem I was speaking to as anyone. I am told A LOT that I am too zealous in my zealotry. I know that is true.

We are all on the path to wisdom

In my view, doing good, being nice and having fun is the most we can hope for.

Thanks.

Elections Don't Kill Empires

The more I view the photo above, the more ridiculous it appears to me. Just because a bunch of folks go to the polls one day and cast their votes for their next Republocrat, doesn't mean the empire decided to commit suicide. Rather, the empire is rather slowly poisoning itself over several decades regardless of party in power. Neither political party is to blame, but rather the People ourselves, for continually building a system whereby we are "taken care of" and "others are taken care of" so we won't be bothered with either. We know are neighbors and elderly family members deserve our care and attention, but it is out of pure selfishness that we pawn it off onto the government, and build the necessary bureaucracy to support it, since none of us wish to be bothered. We're too busy with our insignificant lives to get involved personally. We send grandma to the home and then tell our elected representatives to take care of the homeless man because he is bringing down property values and ruining the view. The best part of all, is we don't even have to pay for it! We simply pass the bill onto to those not even born. It is all the trappings of slavery today (healthcare, housing, food, etc) with the future generations having to do the hard field work of bondage later. Sweet!

Pages