New York Times puts gun control editorial on Page 1

[stevenl]

Any Congressman or woman who even hints at restricting profits from weapons sales will have the NRA put a bullseye target on them. That will be the end of their political career. The American public will start chanting NRA pro gun slogans and the second amendment for many decades to come. America is no longer run 'by the people for the people' it is run by Corporate America for Corporate America. Guns are a $15 billion a year industry and it isn't going anywhere soon. Mass shootings are good for gun sales the last thing the NRA wants is any legislation that stops them. One mass shooting a day is good for profit margins.

Such cynical wrong headed nonsense ... First the NRA is not the major player it used to be in fighting those who would try to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights. Several other groups collectively have just as much clout. And the REAL RESISTANCE to Gun Grabbers is the close to 100 Million American Citizens who will fight tooth and nail against those who would attempt to confiscate guns and take our Constitutional Rights. Also the NRA is not associated with making profits from gun manufacturers ... The NRA and several other large gun enthusiast groups - combined represent many millions of gun owners - not gun producers.... As a result - members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate listen very closely to the opinions of gun owners and those who defend the U.S. Constitution... America is a Representative Republic and voters decide who gets elected to REPRESENT their wishes ... And no sane member of Congress is going to go too far afield and fight the people they represent .... It is the voice of the people - not the voice of the NRA or other gun groups that have the clout to keep Gun Control under wraps...

Your silly misconception is what drives gun sales .. it is not mass shootings ... it is Hussain Obama who drives gun sales... IT HAS BEEN PROVEN ... Every time President Obama spouts off about Gun Control -- Gun sales skyrocket - a graph can be plotting depicting Obama's speeches about Gun Control and Gun Sales ... Americans are not going to allow the government to confiscate guns ...

It may come as a surprise to you but Gun Ownership Rights are not related to sporting use, hunting or target practice ...and even self protection is not the primary motivation to own guns... The provision in the 2nd Amendment to Bear Arms is to protect the citizenry against a ROGUE GOVERNMENT ... which is what we have today in America... The unrelenting drive of President Obama to confiscate guns is to have free reign to dominate and subdue the American population. And Obama's seething anger at this issue is that he cannot find a way to take away guns and make the American population defenseless against his plans....

Before a rogue government could possibly confiscate the guns from nearly 100 Million Americans who own nearly 300 Millions guns - it would take an occupying army of at least 10 to 20 times bigger than the American Army is now - even counting the National Guard... therefore it is NOT going to happen.

So you see the NRA is not the bogey man out making millions from gun sales... The NRA and other large gun groups rake in tens of millions of dollars from American gun owners who are vowed and intent on NEVER EVER allowing anyone to take away the right to bear arms...

Obama is angry because he realizes the futility of a plan he once thought would be a knock dead cinch ...

It is not as difficult to enact gun control as you may think. The first thing the government has to do is give the public fare warning. They let them know that these new laws are coming into force and anyone who holds a gun that is not "Registered" is illegal and can be subject to a fine or imprisonment. Since most people don't like breaking the law, they turned there guns into the Police Station. The ones who had a need for a gun, for hunting for example, got them "Registered" paid the Registration Fee, and kept them locked up in a special cabinet or at least out of sight with a trigger lock.

The 2nd Amendment does not clarify the "Rights to Bear Arms". It just says the Citizen have this right. But I think it is best described by the Roman Politician Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) who wrote that bearing arms for self-defense of the individual and for public defense against tyranny was there right. So I think he describes this best.

The Problem with Gun Control is it doesn't keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals, who use them in the wrong way. They will always be able to buy guns. Just like they will always be able to buy illegal drugs. It just keeps guns out of the hands of mostly honest people. Who may keep a gun for self-protection for themselves and family.

Sure! With Gun Control Shooting Deaths go down, but not the Murder Rate. This has been the main objective to Gun Control from the NRA. That guns don't kill people. People kill people. Lets face facts here. If you are going to kill the little woman for cheating on you not having that hand gun in your desk drawer makes little different to you. A Knife or Poison will still accomplish the same thing.

Or a House Robbery. Perhaps if everyone is allowed to keep a gun in there house this acts as a deterrent. But now with Gun Control 3 Hooligans can break into your house, beat you to a pulp, rape your wife and daughter, rob you blind, and walk away to do this for another victim. No recordable shooting deaths there, are there? But personally I would sooner prefer to fill them full of lead and add 3 shooting deaths to the book.

Do they need some form of Gun Control? Well I don't see the sense in allowing some guy to buy a sub-machine gun who just got out of a Psycho Hospital. Or anyone a sub-machine gun without strict control for that matter. Or selling a gun to a guy who has a Criminal Record for violence, as in Rape or Murder, or Robbery. But taking the right away of a Law Abiding Citizen, who merely wants to keep a gun to protect his property and family, is wrong. It is as wrong today as it was 2,000 year ago.

My Father kept a Loaded Shot Gun in his Bedroom closet for as long as I could remember. As kids we were never allowed to go in there so none of us blew our heads off. When Gun Control came in I had a talk to him about it as he was breaking the law. He didn't care. As far as he was concerned it was his right to be able to do that. In all these years I can't say I ever disagreed with him either.

So from a 200 year old amendment we now go to a 2000+ years old reason/explanation.

The times have changed.

[OMGImInPattaya]

They should stick to promoting WMDs in Iraq and cheerleading for war!

[Boon Mee]

The NYT out beclowns itself again.

Confiscate all the guns and who is left with them? That's right! Gun Free Zones are targets for whack jobs and terror mongerers...

[Cats4ever]

Any Congressman or woman who even hints at restricting profits from weapons sales will have the NRA put a bullseye target on them. That will be the end of their political career. The American public will start chanting NRA pro gun slogans and the second amendment for many decades to come. America is no longer run 'by the people for the people' it is run by Corporate America for Corporate America. Guns are a $15 billion a year industry and it isn't going anywhere soon. Mass shootings are good for gun sales the last thing the NRA wants is any legislation that stops them. One mass shooting a day is good for profit margins.

Such cynical wrong headed nonsense ... First the NRA is not the major player it used to be in fighting those who would try to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights. Several other groups collectively have just as much clout. And the REAL RESISTANCE to Gun Grabbers is the close to 100 Million American Citizens who will fight tooth and nail against those who would attempt to confiscate guns and take our Constitutional Rights. Also the NRA is not associated with making profits from gun manufacturers ... The NRA and several other large gun enthusiast groups - combined represent many millions of gun owners - not gun producers.... As a result - members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate listen very closely to the opinions of gun owners and those who defend the U.S. Constitution... America is a Representative Republic and voters decide who gets elected to REPRESENT their wishes ... And no sane member of Congress is going to go too far afield and fight the people they represent .... It is the voice of the people - not the voice of the NRA or other gun groups that have the clout to keep Gun Control under wraps...

Your silly misconception is what drives gun sales .. it is not mass shootings ... it is Hussain Obama who drives gun sales... IT HAS BEEN PROVEN ... Every time President Obama spouts off about Gun Control -- Gun sales skyrocket - a graph can be plotting depicting Obama's speeches about Gun Control and Gun Sales ... Americans are not going to allow the government to confiscate guns ...

It may come as a surprise to you but Gun Ownership Rights are not related to sporting use, hunting or target practice ...and even self protection is not the primary motivation to own guns... The provision in the 2nd Amendment to Bear Arms is to protect the citizenry against a ROGUE GOVERNMENT ... which is what we have today in America... The unrelenting drive of President Obama to confiscate guns is to have free reign to dominate and subdue the American population. And Obama's seething anger at this issue is that he cannot find a way to take away guns and make the American population defenseless against his plans....

Before a rogue government could possibly confiscate the guns from nearly 100 Million Americans who own nearly 300 Millions guns - it would take an occupying army of at least 10 to 20 times bigger than the American Army is now - even counting the National Guard... therefore it is NOT going to happen.

So you see the NRA is not the bogey man out making millions from gun sales... The NRA and other large gun groups rake in tens of millions of dollars from American gun owners who are vowed and intent on NEVER EVER allowing anyone to take away the right to bear arms...

Obama is angry because he realizes the futility of a plan he once thought would be a knock dead cinch ...

I'd go easy on the "over educated" part of your slogan Mr Gruen.

[up2u2]

Actually, no, he rebuts your "point beautifully." Any person who assigns a value to others that they seek to profit off mass murder disqualifies themselves as having no real contributions in the public space. I too have grave character doubts about the motivations of those who espouse gun control but people like me try to check our disdain and wrap our contempt around the issue offered, the means of the politics, and the behaviors as a political movement to enact gun control- deception, crisis manipulation, fear mongering, etc. You actually illustrate the point in opposition to you, beautifully, in fact.

Actually he doesn't. It is just the same old right wing NRA gibberish. The NRA actually rates politicians on their pro gun conduct in Congress. You think they do this for the benefit of American society. A person would need his head read. Firstly it's about the money, secondly it is about the money. Recently the Republicans voted down a Bill that would see arms sales to terrorists with 'no fly' flags on them and the mentally ill. Do you think that was in the best interest of the American public? Of course not, it is about Republicans bought and paid for by the NRA. As plain as gumboots on a duck. What you need to check is your contempt for common sense.

[tigermoth]

The remarks every pro gun advocate make seem to always quote the 2nd ammendment. The constitution has been amended numerous times, why not again. The right to carry firearms was formulated when America was in the situation of fighting for its freedom within their own country. This is no longer the situation and therefore that right should be amended.

[stevenl]

The remarks every pro gun advocate make seem to always quote the 2nd ammendment. The constitution has been amended numerous times, why not again. The right to carry firearms was formulated when America was in the situation of fighting for its freedom within their own country. This is no longer the situation and therefore that right should be amended.

Because, see numerous answers in that respect, the current administration is a rogue government and needs to be stopped.

[jpinx]

The remarks every pro gun advocate make seem to always quote the 2nd ammendment. The constitution has been amended numerous times, why not again. The right to carry firearms was formulated when America was in the situation of fighting for its freedom within their own country. This is no longer the situation and therefore that right should be amended.

Horse, bolt, door.....

Actually there apparently were some attempts to amend the constitution, but they were kicked out by the bought-and-paid-for Supreme Court

[jpinx]

The remarks every pro gun advocate make seem to always quote the 2nd ammendment. The constitution has been amended numerous times, why not again. The right to carry firearms was formulated when America was in the situation of fighting for its freedom within their own country. This is no longer the situation and therefore that right should be amended.

Because, see numerous answers in that respect, the current administration is a rogue government and needs to be stopped.

Does that mean that the majority of americans are rogues - to have voted in the current administration?

[OMGImInPattaya]

The remarks every pro gun advocate make seem to always quote the 2nd ammendment. The constitution has been amended numerous times, why not again. The right to carry firearms was formulated when America was in the situation of fighting for its freedom within their own country. This is no longer the situation and therefore that right should be amended.

The amendment process is set forth clearly in the Constitution...go at it ???

[stevenl]

The remarks every pro gun advocate make seem to always quote the 2nd ammendment. The constitution has been amended numerous times, why not again. The right to carry firearms was formulated when America was in the situation of fighting for its freedom within their own country. This is no longer the situation and therefore that right should be amended.

Because, see numerous answers in that respect, the current administration is a rogue government and needs to be stopped.

Does that mean that the majority of americans are rogues - to have voted in the current administration?

Don't ask me, better ask poster JDGruen who wrote yesterday "The provision in the 2nd Amendment to Bear Arms is to protect the citizenry against a ROGUE GOVERNMENT ... which is what we have today in America...".

[up2u2]

Here's the solution from Jerry Falwell Jr President of Liberty University suggesting that ALL students should register to carry a firearm. An interesting social experiment have every student on campus armed, locked and loaded. Lets see how that goes. lol

Absolutely brain dead.

[MZurf]

The remarks every pro gun advocate make seem to always quote the 2nd ammendment. The constitution has been amended numerous times, why not again. The right to carry firearms was formulated when America was in the situation of fighting for its freedom within their own country. This is no longer the situation and therefore that right should be amended.

Because, see numerous answers in that respect, the current administration is a rogue government and needs to be stopped.

Meanwhile, in the real world........

[MZurf]

You don't need to try and reclaim all the guns, which we know is impossible. Make them obsolete by banning the sale of ammunition.

But people could still club someone to death with an empty revolver.

...or that ubiquitous hammer.

Murdering scores of people with a hammer is slightly more challenging than emptying 30 round magazines with a semi-automatic rifle, don't you think?

[KarenBravo]

Regarding the second amendment:-

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.^[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Maybe you gun nuts should get educated on what the 2nd amendment is all about. Here's a clue; well regulated militia.

[impulse]

Regarding the second amendment:-

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.^[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Maybe you gun nuts should get educated on what the 2nd amendment is all about. Here's a clue; well regulated militia.

You can cherry pick all you want. Bottom line, the founding fathers created a nation by raising arms against the existing government. Who, exactly, would have regulated their militia? The existing government, which they had declared to be despotic and in need of riddance?

Perhaps this excerpt from the Declaration of Independence will shed a little more light on the topic than some interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

If it's our right, and indeed, our duty to throw off any despotic government should we find ourselves under one, do you figure giving up our guns today and forever into the future is aligned with the founding principles? You don't have to look too far back into history, (nor too far away in miles even today) to see nations whose people would have been better served had their despotic leaders been thrown off by a well armed citizenry. If only they hadn't allowed their governments to take away their arms- perhaps before they became the despots that history proved them to be...

Edited December 6, 2015 by impulse

[Linky]

It's just the same old BS arguments against any form of gun control time and time again.

Until the gun control populace comes up with some new positions, the same old BS arguments can be used.

For all you whiners (Not you, NMS) out there, precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

I'll bite.

For a start, put this back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Fantastic idea.

In 2013 the FBI Crime Report indicates there were 285 murders using rifles, of any kind.

However, during 2013 this same report shows there were a total of 428 murders with hammers or clubs as the primary weapon of choice.

It had little impact before but maybe, perhaps it will work wonders this time.

Try again. I was hoping for some fresh new ideas.

How many mass murders by those wielding clubs and hammers?

[Chicog]

The NYT out beclowns itself again.

Confiscate all the guns and who is left with them? That's right! Gun Free Zones are targets for whack jobs and terror mongerers...

If you could read, it doesn't suggest confiscating all guns, so your NRA sloganeering is irrelevant.

[Linky]

A nice christmass card, complete with gun toting child. And to think this woman is in politics, frightening.

This GOP Politician's Christmas Card Has a S***load Of Guns On It

Huffington Post entry michele-fiore-c...

[impulse]

A nice christmass card, complete with gun toting child. And to think this woman is in politics, frightening.

This GOP Politician's Christmas Card Has a S***load Of Guns On It

My God. The Repubs are going to seed. I'd have had my butt warmed and been sent right back to my room to put on my new suit and tie had I worn jeans for our family Christmas photo...

(Edit: BTW, I'm an unapologetic gun owner, but there is no excuse in the world for that Extar EXP in the middle to be in civilian hands, and I suspect the barrel on the shotgun is shorter than the legally required 18".)

Edited December 6, 2015 by impulse

[bendejo]

What does 'A well regulated militia' mean?

What it meant when the phrase was first coined vs what the hell it is supposed to mean now.

"Militia" could be a scary word, guys like George Zimmerman sign up for things like that. Or Dwight Shrute on 'The Office.'

[chuckd]

Until the gun control populace comes up with some new positions, the same old BS arguments can be used.

For all you whiners (Not you, NMS) out there, precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

I'll bite.

For a start, put this back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Fantastic idea.

In 2013 the FBI Crime Report indicates there were 285 murders using rifles, of any kind.

However, during 2013 this same report shows there were a total of 428 murders with hammers or clubs as the primary weapon of choice.

It had little impact before but maybe, perhaps it will work wonders this time.

Try again. I was hoping for some fresh new ideas.

How many mass murders by those wielding clubs and hammers?

I must have missed your contribution on what law could be proposed that would solve the gun control issue to your liking.

Please repost it.

You do have a serious contribution to make...don't you?

[GOLDBUGGY]

Any Congressman or woman who even hints at restricting profits from weapons sales will have the NRA put a bullseye target on them. That will be the end of their political career. The American public will start chanting NRA pro gun slogans and the second amendment for many decades to come. America is no longer run 'by the people for the people' it is run by Corporate America for Corporate America. Guns are a $15 billion a year industry and it isn't going anywhere soon. Mass shootings are good for gun sales the last thing the NRA wants is any legislation that stops them. One mass shooting a day is good for profit margins.

Such cynical wrong headed nonsense ... First the NRA is not the major player it used to be in fighting those who would try to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights. Several other groups collectively have just as much clout. And the REAL RESISTANCE to Gun Grabbers is the close to 100 Million American Citizens who will fight tooth and nail against those who would attempt to confiscate guns and take our Constitutional Rights. Also the NRA is not associated with making profits from gun manufacturers ... The NRA and several other large gun enthusiast groups - combined represent many millions of gun owners - not gun producers.... As a result - members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate listen very closely to the opinions of gun owners and those who defend the U.S. Constitution... America is a Representative Republic and voters decide who gets elected to REPRESENT their wishes ... And no sane member of Congress is going to go too far afield and fight the people they represent .... It is the voice of the people - not the voice of the NRA or other gun groups that have the clout to keep Gun Control under wraps...

Your silly misconception is what drives gun sales .. it is not mass shootings ... it is Hussain Obama who drives gun sales... IT HAS BEEN PROVEN ... Every time President Obama spouts off about Gun Control -- Gun sales skyrocket - a graph can be plotting depicting Obama's speeches about Gun Control and Gun Sales ... Americans are not going to allow the government to confiscate guns ...

It may come as a surprise to you but Gun Ownership Rights are not related to sporting use, hunting or target practice ...and even self protection is not the primary motivation to own guns... The provision in the 2nd Amendment to Bear Arms is to protect the citizenry against a ROGUE GOVERNMENT ... which is what we have today in America... The unrelenting drive of President Obama to confiscate guns is to have free reign to dominate and subdue the American population. And Obama's seething anger at this issue is that he cannot find a way to take away guns and make the American population defenseless against his plans....

Before a rogue government could possibly confiscate the guns from nearly 100 Million Americans who own nearly 300 Millions guns - it would take an occupying army of at least 10 to 20 times bigger than the American Army is now - even counting the National Guard... therefore it is NOT going to happen.

So you see the NRA is not the bogey man out making millions from gun sales... The NRA and other large gun groups rake in tens of millions of dollars from American gun owners who are vowed and intent on NEVER EVER allowing anyone to take away the right to bear arms...

Obama is angry because he realizes the futility of a plan he once thought would be a knock dead cinch ...

It is not as difficult to enact gun control as you may think. The first thing the government has to do is give the public fare warning. They let them know that these new laws are coming into force and anyone who holds a gun that is not "Registered" is illegal and can be subject to a fine or imprisonment. Since most people don't like breaking the law, they turned there guns into the Police Station. The ones who had a need for a gun, for hunting for example, got them "Registered" paid the Registration Fee, and kept them locked up in a special cabinet or at least out of sight with a trigger lock.

The 2nd Amendment does not clarify the "Rights to Bear Arms". It just says the Citizen have this right. But I think it is best described by the Roman Politician Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) who wrote that bearing arms for self-defense of the individual and for public defense against tyranny was there right. So I think he describes this best.

The Problem with Gun Control is it doesn't keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals, who use them in the wrong way. They will always be able to buy guns. Just like they will always be able to buy illegal drugs. It just keeps guns out of the hands of mostly honest people. Who may keep a gun for self-protection for themselves and family.

Sure! With Gun Control Shooting Deaths go down, but not the Murder Rate. This has been the main objective to Gun Control from the NRA. That guns don't kill people. People kill people. Lets face facts here. If you are going to kill the little woman for cheating on you not having that hand gun in your desk drawer makes little different to you. A Knife or Poison will still accomplish the same thing.

Or a House Robbery. Perhaps if everyone is allowed to keep a gun in there house this acts as a deterrent. But now with Gun Control 3 Hooligans can break into your house, beat you to a pulp, rape your wife and daughter, rob you blind, and walk away to do this for another victim. No recordable shooting deaths there, are there? But personally I would sooner prefer to fill them full of lead and add 3 shooting deaths to the book.

Do they need some form of Gun Control? Well I don't see the sense in allowing some guy to buy a sub-machine gun who just got out of a Psycho Hospital. Or anyone a sub-machine gun without strict control for that matter. Or selling a gun to a guy who has a Criminal Record for violence, as in Rape or Murder, or Robbery. But taking the right away of a Law Abiding Citizen, who merely wants to keep a gun to protect his property and family, is wrong. It is as wrong today as it was 2,000 year ago.

My Father kept a Loaded Shot Gun in his Bedroom closet for as long as I could remember. As kids we were never allowed to go in there so none of us blew our heads off. When Gun Control came in I had a talk to him about it as he was breaking the law. He didn't care. As far as he was concerned it was his right to be able to do that. In all these years I can't say I ever disagreed with him either.

So from a 200 year old amendment we now go to a 2000+ years old reason/explanation.

The times have changed.

So I guess you missed the part about the Roman Politician who claimed over 2,000 Years ago and long before the US 2nd Amendment the right to bear arms huh?

Don't worry about it. This happens a lot when someone skips over a post before posting his comment. .

[GOLDBUGGY]

The remarks every pro gun advocate make seem to always quote the 2nd ammendment. The constitution has been amended numerous times, why not again. The right to carry firearms was formulated when America was in the situation of fighting for its freedom within their own country. This is no longer the situation and therefore that right should be amended.

You make a good case as to why old laws should be amended. You don't present any reason at all on why they should be today.

[stevenl]

Any Congressman or woman who even hints at restricting profits from weapons sales will have the NRA put a bullseye target on them. That will be the end of their political career. The American public will start chanting NRA pro gun slogans and the second amendment for many decades to come. America is no longer run 'by the people for the people' it is run by Corporate America for Corporate America. Guns are a $15 billion a year industry and it isn't going anywhere soon. Mass shootings are good for gun sales the last thing the NRA wants is any legislation that stops them. One mass shooting a day is good for profit margins.

Such cynical wrong headed nonsense ... First the NRA is not the major player it used to be in fighting those who would try to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights. Several other groups collectively have just as much clout. And the REAL RESISTANCE to Gun Grabbers is the close to 100 Million American Citizens who will fight tooth and nail against those who would attempt to confiscate guns and take our Constitutional Rights. Also the NRA is not associated with making profits from gun manufacturers ... The NRA and several other large gun enthusiast groups - combined represent many millions of gun owners - not gun producers.... As a result - members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate listen very closely to the opinions of gun owners and those who defend the U.S. Constitution... America is a Representative Republic and voters decide who gets elected to REPRESENT their wishes ... And no sane member of Congress is going to go too far afield and fight the people they represent .... It is the voice of the people - not the voice of the NRA or other gun groups that have the clout to keep Gun Control under wraps...

Your silly misconception is what drives gun sales .. it is not mass shootings ... it is Hussain Obama who drives gun sales... IT HAS BEEN PROVEN ... Every time President Obama spouts off about Gun Control -- Gun sales skyrocket - a graph can be plotting depicting Obama's speeches about Gun Control and Gun Sales ... Americans are not going to allow the government to confiscate guns ...

It may come as a surprise to you but Gun Ownership Rights are not related to sporting use, hunting or target practice ...and even self protection is not the primary motivation to own guns... The provision in the 2nd Amendment to Bear Arms is to protect the citizenry against a ROGUE GOVERNMENT ... which is what we have today in America... The unrelenting drive of President Obama to confiscate guns is to have free reign to dominate and subdue the American population. And Obama's seething anger at this issue is that he cannot find a way to take away guns and make the American population defenseless against his plans....

Before a rogue government could possibly confiscate the guns from nearly 100 Million Americans who own nearly 300 Millions guns - it would take an occupying army of at least 10 to 20 times bigger than the American Army is now - even counting the National Guard... therefore it is NOT going to happen.

So you see the NRA is not the bogey man out making millions from gun sales... The NRA and other large gun groups rake in tens of millions of dollars from American gun owners who are vowed and intent on NEVER EVER allowing anyone to take away the right to bear arms...

Obama is angry because he realizes the futility of a plan he once thought would be a knock dead cinch ...

It is not as difficult to enact gun control as you may think. The first thing the government has to do is give the public fare warning. They let them know that these new laws are coming into force and anyone who holds a gun that is not "Registered" is illegal and can be subject to a fine or imprisonment. Since most people don't like breaking the law, they turned there guns into the Police Station. The ones who had a need for a gun, for hunting for example, got them "Registered" paid the Registration Fee, and kept them locked up in a special cabinet or at least out of sight with a trigger lock.

The 2nd Amendment does not clarify the "Rights to Bear Arms". It just says the Citizen have this right. But I think it is best described by the Roman Politician Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) who wrote that bearing arms for self-defense of the individual and for public defense against tyranny was there right. So I think he describes this best.

The Problem with Gun Control is it doesn't keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals, who use them in the wrong way. They will always be able to buy guns. Just like they will always be able to buy illegal drugs. It just keeps guns out of the hands of mostly honest people. Who may keep a gun for self-protection for themselves and family.

Sure! With Gun Control Shooting Deaths go down, but not the Murder Rate. This has been the main objective to Gun Control from the NRA. That guns don't kill people. People kill people. Lets face facts here. If you are going to kill the little woman for cheating on you not having that hand gun in your desk drawer makes little different to you. A Knife or Poison will still accomplish the same thing.

Or a House Robbery. Perhaps if everyone is allowed to keep a gun in there house this acts as a deterrent. But now with Gun Control 3 Hooligans can break into your house, beat you to a pulp, rape your wife and daughter, rob you blind, and walk away to do this for another victim. No recordable shooting deaths there, are there? But personally I would sooner prefer to fill them full of lead and add 3 shooting deaths to the book.

Do they need some form of Gun Control? Well I don't see the sense in allowing some guy to buy a sub-machine gun who just got out of a Psycho Hospital. Or anyone a sub-machine gun without strict control for that matter. Or selling a gun to a guy who has a Criminal Record for violence, as in Rape or Murder, or Robbery. But taking the right away of a Law Abiding Citizen, who merely wants to keep a gun to protect his property and family, is wrong. It is as wrong today as it was 2,000 year ago.

My Father kept a Loaded Shot Gun in his Bedroom closet for as long as I could remember. As kids we were never allowed to go in there so none of us blew our heads off. When Gun Control came in I had a talk to him about it as he was breaking the law. He didn't care. As far as he was concerned it was his right to be able to do that. In all these years I can't say I ever disagreed with him either.

So from a 200 year old amendment we now go to a 2000+ years old reason/explanation.
The times have changed.

So I guess you missed the part about the Roman Politician who claimed over 2,000 Years ago and long before the US 2nd Amendment the right to bear arms huh?

Don't worry about it. This happens a lot when someone skips over a post before posting his comment. .

No, I pointed out to you that a reference to a habit 2000 years ago for something like this is stupid.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Regarding the second amendment:-

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.^[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Maybe you gun nuts should get educated on what the 2nd amendment is all about. Here's a clue; well regulated militia.

Benito Mussolini had a well regulated regular militia to. He called them the "Brown Shirts". Adolf Hitler had them to, He called them the "Black Shirts" which was later changed to the "Gestapo". So I think it is you who is missing the main point here.

There is just so many people today who are willing to give up there "Rights" at the drop of a hat, and even more who want them taken away from other people, forgetting that many countries like America had to fight for these "Rights".

Personally I think that ever average man or woman has the right to defend themselves, property, and family, without having to take 10 years of Karate or Boxing to do this. I also think that if you are going to take away this "Right" from people you had better have a damned good reason, other than Guns Kill People.

The problem I have with Strict Gun Control is that nobody has presented to me, or anybody else, a damned good reason. A Police Report stating that Shooting Deaths are down but the Murder Rate is up, doesn't cut it with me.

.

,

[lostboy]

It is not as difficult to enact gun control as you may think. The first thing the government has to do is give the public fare warning. They let them know that these new laws are coming into force and anyone who holds a gun that is not "Registered" is illegal and can be subject to a fine or imprisonment. Since most people don't like breaking the law, they turned there guns into the Police Station. The ones who had a need for a gun, for hunting for example, got them "Registered" paid the Registration Fee, and kept them locked up in a special cabinet or at least out of sight with a trigger lock.

The 2nd Amendment does not clarify the "Rights to Bear Arms". It just says the Citizen have this right. But I think it is best described by the Roman Politician Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) who wrote that bearing arms for self-defense of the individual and for public defense against tyranny was there right. So I think he describes this best.

The Problem with Gun Control is it doesn't keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals, who use them in the wrong way. They will always be able to buy guns. Just like they will always be able to buy illegal drugs. It just keeps guns out of the hands of mostly honest people. Who may keep a gun for self-protection for themselves and family.

Sure! With Gun Control Shooting Deaths go down, but not the Murder Rate. This has been the main objective to Gun Control from the NRA. That guns don't kill people. People kill people. Lets face facts here. If you are going to kill the little woman for cheating on you not having that hand gun in your desk drawer makes little different to you. A Knife or Poison will still accomplish the same thing.

Or a House Robbery. Perhaps if everyone is allowed to keep a gun in there house this acts as a deterrent. But now with Gun Control 3 Hooligans can break into your house, beat you to a pulp, rape your wife and daughter, rob you blind, and walk away to do this for another victim. No recordable shooting deaths there, are there? But personally I would sooner prefer to fill them full of lead and add 3 shooting deaths to the book.

Do they need some form of Gun Control? Well I don't see the sense in allowing some guy to buy a sub-machine gun who just got out of a Psycho Hospital. Or anyone a sub-machine gun without strict control for that matter. Or selling a gun to a guy who has a Criminal Record for violence, as in Rape or Murder, or Robbery. But taking the right away of a Law Abiding Citizen, who merely wants to keep a gun to protect his property and family, is wrong. It is as wrong today as it was 2,000 year ago.

My Father kept a Loaded Shot Gun in his Bedroom closet for as long as I could remember. As kids we were never allowed to go in there so none of us blew our heads off. When Gun Control came in I had a talk to him about it as he was breaking the law. He didn't care. As far as he was concerned it was his right to be able to do that. In all these years I can't say I ever disagreed with him either.

So from a 200 year old amendment we now go to a 2000+ years old reason/explanation.

The times have changed.

So I guess you missed the part about the Roman Politician who claimed over 2,000 Years ago and long before the US 2nd Amendment the right to bear arms huh?

Don't worry about it. This happens a lot when someone skips over a post before posting his comment. .

Cicero has nothing to say about gun control. His context is entirely un-related and inappropriate to 21stC urban society. He lived in a slave owning culture that had experienced a massive rebellion that resulted in Crassus crucifying thousands of slaves after he suppressed the rebellion led by Spartacus. Further more Cicero lived in a time of transition where the Roman Republic was divided between military leaders who were fighting for power. Cicero was a leader of the Optimates, a political group that believed in the natural right of the Roman aristocracy and selected 'new men' who demonstrated certain talents to rule Rome over the general populace. He was directly opposed to Caesar who supported the Populares.

So Cicero was an elitist, snob and believed only a certain class of person should rule. He was a talented legal scholar and his arguments in favour of the Republic are justifiably famous and respected. To use him to argue against gun control is a travesty of history. But don't worry about it. This happens when simpletons crib from ideologically tainted websites to try and make themselves look smart.

[KarenBravo]

Regarding the second amendment:-

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.^[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Maybe you gun nuts should get educated on what the 2nd amendment is all about. Here's a clue; well regulated militia.

Benito Mussolini had a well regulated regular militia to. He called them the "Brown Shirts". Adolf Hitler had them to, He called them the "Black Shirts" which was later changed to the "Gestapo". So I think it is you who is missing the main point here. ,

Getting your history wrong doesn't give the rest of your post much credibility.

Mussolini's militia was called the Black-shirts. Hitler's was called the Brown-shirts and they certainly did not become the Gestapo. They became irrelevant after their leader, Ernst Rohm was arrested and executed during the "Night of the long knives" in 1934. They were superseded by the SS.

On an internet forum, you can't just make stuff up and expect to get away with it.

[arjunadawn]

Actually, no, he rebuts your "point beautifully." Any person who assigns a value to others that they seek to profit off mass murder disqualifies themselves as having no real contributions in the public space. I too have grave character doubts about the motivations of those who espouse gun control but people like me try to check our disdain and wrap our contempt around the issue offered, the means of the politics, and the behaviors as a political movement to enact gun control- deception, crisis manipulation, fear mongering, etc. You actually illustrate the point in opposition to you, beautifully, in fact.

Actually he doesn't. It is just the same old right wing NRA gibberish. The NRA actually rates politicians on their pro gun conduct in Congress. You think they do this for the benefit of American society. A person would need his head read. Firstly it's about the money, secondly it is about the money. Recently the Republicans voted down a Bill that would see arms sales to terrorists with 'no fly' flags on them and the mentally ill. Do you think that was in the best interest of the American public? Of course not, it is about Republicans bought and paid for by the NRA. As plain as gumboots on a duck. What you need to check is your contempt for common sense.

Everything you said was a fine enough rebuttal, but like a narcissist Freudian signature that demands to be printed, leftists are incapable of suppressing their "contempt" for others with pejoratives somehow working into their analysis- always personal, always character based, invariably showing their own weakness.

[impulse]

On an internet forum, you can't just make stuff up and expect to get away with it.

When did that change???