Yes, that pesky Constitution and Bill of Rights were truly a disgusting idea. Obama voter?

In reply to George: The Constitution and Bill of Rights are antiquated. I don't believe the American citizens were walking around with AK-47's when those laws were written. It is time for a change.

You people that keep harping on the constitution & bill of rights like it is the Gospel of America written by the hand of man & dictated by God make me sick. The founding fathers were ok in their day, but that was 250 years ago. It's like ancient history that is antiquated if not interperted for current times.
Besides, what was so great about the founding fathers? They were a bunch of rich white men that didn't want to pay their taxes. Maybe that's why Republicans today relate to them. Record seting sales for Chick-fil-a doesn't mean it's right to deny some Americans of their right to the persuit of happiness & deny their rights . It seems like right wingers want to interpert the constitution THEIR way & twist what the founding fathers said to fit their agenda. The government is in charge, not you & the Government doesn't see things your way. Gee that's tough sh-t.

For Dave and Michael. If the constitution is "antiquated" Then what other rights should we do away with? You are right American citizens didn't have AK47's they also didn't have the internet, twitter, TV, Movies, Telephones..........so maybe we can get rid of free speech. They had know Idea that Muslims would attack us on 9-11 since we didn't have muslims in America then and the sure didn't know about scientology so that freedom of religion thing needs to go. The right to privacy it should go.....what else?

In 1776 a musket was an assault rifle. The phrase 'assault rifle' is used as a stigma against the 2nd amendment. Freedom is about personal choice; to choose the right tool for the task at hand. The Constitution tells government what they are allowed to do. Its Bill of Rights means just that. Government keeps away from those rights in all cases. Citizens choose what they wish to purchase while remembering that life is choices, choices have consequences, make the right choices. Citizens are to have enough sense to know what they do not need. An armed people are citizens. A disarmed people are subjects.

Sen Feinstein claims 48 folks on average are killed by modern sporting rifles each year, like the AR, so wants to ban them. Last year, over 700 were killed by feet and hands, and 50 will be killed by lightning. To ban the most popular rifle ever made, despite so seldom used in crime, is unfathomable.

"Gun Sanity Day." Brilliant. Start that movement!

This is only a guess, but that requirement would not have helped any of the recent tragedies including Sandy Hook, nor the vast majority of "I was arguing with my neighbor and shot him" or "I shot my wife because she was going to leave me" or "my kid found a gun and shot their friend while playing" or "drug dealer uses straw-man-purchased gun to kill rival" cases that make up the vast majority of homicides.

Couldn't agree more with you Andrea! Let's be sensible about stopping the senseless murders that happen in this country. Guns don't have minds, like cars. It's the operator who kills and kills far more often operating cars than guns. It makes sense to keep mentally ill people from operating both!

Yes, a good start Andrea. But why does ANYONE, other than the military, need automatic weapons?

there is already a law that deals with that. It didn't work. Since 1968 mentaly unfit people cant buy guns, the problem is a court has to decide that and its tough to prove.

In theory, gun control laws already exist to prevent the mentally ill from getting their hands on any guns. These laws work well, don't they? What we really need is a total reform of the mental health system and laws. The "old" system was gutted out in the 70's and 80's. They needed to be gutted out, the old laws were cruel and archaic. Unfortunately, they didn't replace them with anything. This resulted in the massive homeless populations we have now, and also the increased violence, armed and otherwise, by mentally ill individuals. We already have enough gun laws, many of which can't even be enforced. What we need are sensible, enforceble mental health laws.

Dave, the proposals involve semi-auto weapons, not automatic. New automatic gun sales have been banned since 1986. There's only been one crime ever committed with a legal automatic gun, and that was a cop shooting at a drug dealer many years ago. Rest easy.

FBI: More Club and Hammer Homicides Than RIFLE! http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14107-fbi-more-club-and-hammer-homicides-than-rifle “In 2011, 323 murders were committed with a rifle and 356 with a shotgun, while a staggering 496 were committed with hammers and clubs.”

Randell, where have you seen anyone claim more murders are committed with bats than firearms? I've seen that comparison used between AR-15 (48/year) vs. blunt objects, but never all-firearms, which includes shotguns, blackpowder, etc. Please display the link.

John Q Public: check the image of the Congressman(?) on this very page, which was used to promote Gun Appreciation Day. 'nuff said

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED isn't followed by 'Unless treasonous supreme court justices happen to be sitting on the bench'.

No, but I'm totally up for banning stupid flawed analogies.

I believe the law you are referring to was passed in 1968.

1968 was the passing of Title II GCA (Gun Control Act) of the NFA (National Firearms Act). 1986 was the passing of FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act) which made machine guns illegal except for ones already owned.
Being very specific, it was the Hughes Amendment in the FOPA.

Read my link above (snopes.com, with a copy of homicide methods 1976-2005 and 2011 from the FBI). Guns are used in >67% of of homicides in 2011. "Personal weapons (hands, feet, etc)" were used in 5.7%. So, roughly 12:1 in favor of guns.

Also, homicides don't include accidental shootings, which rarely happen in houses without guns.

Mildred, You are attempting to conflate two very different and complex issues by using a hyperbolic question about a time of gestation in which very few abortions are performed. Stop trying to paint that issue as someone waking up in the morning and saying, "gee I think I'll have an abortion today."

This thread is addressing what appears to be the in your face heartless rallies that are not unlike the Westboro Baptist who are more interested in attention getting tactics, than demonstrating constraint and respect of families all across this nation that are suffering greatly. Those parents that are sitting by the bedside of the child shot at a school yesterday, those parents who cannot afford to live outside of areas that have shootings every day and night, those parents and children in Connecticut that have just experienced the horror that was the direct result of rapid fire weapons and mental illness.

The individual liberties of many in this country are being trampled on by the out of control numbers of guns, the rapid fire weapons of war that are killing our police, first responders, people shopping, people who just wanted to see a movie, people getting on public transportation just wanting to get from point A to point B, and children who are learning their ABC's or sitting in a high school class preparing for their future.

Even the old cow towns controlled guns, for the safety of the public.

Wow, that was one of the more thorough beat downs I've seen on this site. I actually feel kinda bad for Mildred...

If you're trying to draw a parallel between abortion and the murder of these living, breathing children, you are a twisted crone. I'd love to hear you say that to one of the parents affected here.

Earnest & I_Love_Delco - hear hear, well said.

Mildred, it's simple math. The difference is six years minus six weeks.

Since Cain and Able, folks can't get enough of murder. If not doing it, watching it on TV, movies, or video games. It's in the genes.

Sorry area man, but I have zero hate for guns. In fact target shooting is one of the things I love to participate in and have taken gun safety courses. You want to blame the mentally ill, but you ignore that fact that access to guns and the loopholes that are used to move guns around this country, which is not very different from a black market are a big problem.

Nobody wants to "take our guns away". What is being proposed and discussed, by what looks like a wide number of people from all parts of our society, who are not "anti-gun." The discussion under way is clearly about sensible ways to address what has become a major public safety issue.

Further, the Second Amendment does not say to "ensure the people could retain the arms needed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government." The arms needed? In all seriousness, exactly how do you possibly believe that we the people could ever fight the United States Military, which is the greatest in the world? The people would need tanks, war ships, jet fighters, etc.

Get a clue. The NRA that was once a respectable organization was taken over by extremists that are making a great deal of money from the gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers. The more there are produced the more money they make. The NRA is nothing more than a lobbying organization. They could care less about "the people" and only exploit the "the people" by using fear tactics.

Paranoia is a mental illness.

One can support "gun control" without being a hater of guns (or some sort of mythical communist demon out to enslave the population). I learned to shoot before I was a teenager; my uncle shot his first deer at 10 and has hunted all his life (I think he's stopped now, at 91). He was the Police Commissioner of New Canaan, CT for many years after he retired (and was a decorated WWII top fighter pilot). He (and I) am horrified at what has happened, not just in Sandy Hook.

Even Scalia, the most conservative of the Justices, has said that the 2nd Amendment is not about being able to possess any weapon; limitations on weapons (types, checks, etc) is allowed.

Needing military-style weapons (and having every tom, dick and harry carry a handgun) doesn't make insurrection all that much easier. Read David Brin's "Guns and the Insurrection Myth" for another perspective - I don't totally agree with him, but he has a point.

And be serious: no one is "coming for all the guns". No one is seriously looking to eliminate hunting weapons (and AK47's are not such, even if you can use them for hunting - just like dynamite for fishing). Get over the slippery-slope argument; it's not realistic in this country. Instead, we have the slippery-slope in the other direction, where guns are easier to get than cars or driver's licenses; manufacturers are exempted from liability for what they sell, and every argument with a neighbor (or a drunk person) can end up with one of you dead. And that's in areas without rampant crime; in those areas children are frequently killed by stray bullets, even in their own bedrooms. Look at the *consequences* of your purist principle positions.

Go *look* at the body of a 5-year-old riddled by a dozen bullets, and their parents, and realize that no, a guard on campus would very likely not have saved them (there was an armed guard at Columbine, for example). Teachers or random volunteers with weapons in schools would end up likely increasing the number of fatalities, just as guns in a home increase the chance of being killed by a gun. The myth of the vigilante taking down the killer in a spree is just that, a myth. Killers in these situations are stopped when they get tackled while reloading, by people talking them into stopping or surrendering, when they kill themselves (most often), or when police take them out.

Enough. Enough. More than enough. I feel like anyone saying we don't need to do something *real* about this problem should be forced to explain themselves, in person, to the parents of these kids (and other murder victims), while looking at pictures of their bodies.

I'm done. Don't bother with angry responses, I won't be reading them. Think about this, and imagine instead.

JeshutupRandy: "And be serious: no one is 'coming for all the guns'."

Richard Pearson: "While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns." Obama also voted FOUR TIMES against legislation that would protect a homeowner who use a firearm in defense of home and family!

"Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." -Attributed to Sarah Brady, President of Handgun Control, Inc., to Senator Howard Metzenbaum - The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3. This appears to be accurate to the extent that National Educator ran the quote. The nature and accuracy of their source is a matter of some debate. However, neither Brady nor Metzenbaum appear to have denied the statement or accused the National Educator of libel."

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -Janet Reno (Holder's old boss)

I would answer this way:
The constitution allowed you to own any gun that was equal to a gun which could possibly be used against you ... your turn Mike.

I'm sorry Star, in what part of the Constitution does it say that? Please, enlighten us.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. Although some may use an AR-15 to hunt deer. One could reason it is a more humane way of killing a deer. The animal chances of suffering are greatly diminished.

I will answer your question with another question. Why do the police need to have something that can make use of a magazine that holds 20, 30, ...50 rounds of ammunition?

Brian A:
Where did I say the constitution stated those words exactly? If black powder cap and ball were the only guns available, there was no need to state the obvious ... maybe we should legislate against owning personal drones, or model airplanes in the future .. you think?

Michael stated that the constitution allowed you to own a gun for protection ... how can you possibly protect yourself against someone with a 30 round clip-fed 223 if you're only permitted to have a bolt action? If you ban the 223 automatic, you have to ban it from military and police as well to guarantee protection.

BTW .. I was just playing devil's advocate to Mike's question because it had never been answered - I really do not care one way or the other whether they ban 30 round clips .. or not.

and still waiting for a real answer - the 2nd amendment was writtin when we had to worry about indians and the british - and we hunted for food - it would appear that the crazies are still the only ones that answer with the most rediculous responses. anyone who has a mind of thier own - who hasnt been brainwashed by the nra? anyone who as legit reasoning?

michael - you seem to be a little slow on the uptake here. Once again the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Can you understand that?

The Bill of Rights was written to make it clear to the General Governmnet what rights they could not infringe upon.

The 2nd Amendment's intention was to make it clear that the people had a right to defend themeselves from their own governmnet.

Since you did not answer my question allow me ... the same reason the police need to have a weapon that can fire 50 rounds without reloading is the same reason we as individuals should be allowed to have one.

Michael's real name is Boris Nogudnik, the son of old decrpit Soviet spies.

He still think's Lenin is alive -- he saw him in the mausoleum!

Power to the People ... but not fire power. After all, power comes from the barrel of a gun and only the Party will have power so only the Party will have guns.

If you disarm, you are committing eventual suicide at the hands of people like Michael and his Bolshevik would-be "Dear Leaders".

Get our of America, you devil's spawn. OUT.

To Star Thrower - Where is your fighter jet? Your tank? Your grenade launcher? How about your war ship? Those all have "guns" that could be used against us.

The Second Amendment does not say that we can own "any gun that is equal to a gun which could possibly used against you." The Supremes have already ruled on this issue. Your interpretation of the Second Amendment is completely false.

EarnestlyIgnorant,

Judge Napolitano: The Second Amendment is about the right to shoot tyrants, not deer!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/
"...The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, ENTITLED AND ACCUSTOMED TO THEIR ARMS, WHEN COMPARED WITH ANY POSSIBLE ARMY, MUST BE TREMENDOUS AND IRRESISTIBLE. WHO ARE THE MILITA? ARE THEY NOT OURSELVES? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. THEIR SWORDS, AND EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER, ARE THE BIRTHRIGHT OF AN AMERICAN...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." – Alexander Hamilton

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." – Thomas Jefferson

Bradley Manning, by his own confession, leaked top secret documents by the thousands of a wide range of topics that didn't tell us anything we didn't already know because he threw a tantrum over his homosexual boyfriend.

He's not hero, he's a traitor who should be a stain on a firing squad wall.

$5 says you're a gay, muslim, crack dealer.

John Q. - You are arguing with mentally restricted individuals. Their limited intelligence renders them incapable of comprehending the concept. What else could explain Obama's reelection? Unfortunately, 49% of us have the government that the other 51 justly deserves.

Dear foolish Republicans: if you thought Romney would bring change, you were just as fooled as the Democrats. The system as a whole is a complete...a charade. Time to wake up folks, and join the Liberty Movement:
http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/271811-50-major-similarities-between-obama-romney.html

George, Voluntaryist: you're both right of course. And equally, be not worried - I am not arguing with agitprop agents like I-Love-Delco etal. I'm putting ideas out there for the hundreds that read their madness but do not comment.

This system of ours is corrupt and on its last legs. Why does the Armed Service not complain at the recent humiliations forced on it? Why does the Secret Service care more about hookers and blow than their prime objective? Why is "The Left" hysterical, trying to ram their agenda down our throats like there's no tomorrow?

Why? Because, while subversives do in fact control every institution in the land, NO ONE BELIEVES WHAT THEY SAY ... or even cares that they say it.

We good Americans are game, we're hip, we're no longer noobies. We understand it is a rigged game of lies for benefit of people that despise the fact of our birth even as their parasitical nature means they can't just kill us a la Stalin or Mao.

But the end is at hand for them. Recall the final days of the U.S.S.R.: a truck driver's strike paralyzed the Soviet logistics system. But no one cared. Everyone hated the Soviets and they intuitively understood it would collapse under its own weight if they simply stopped propping it up on their own broken backs.

So that's what they did -- they stopped. The U.S.S.R. collapsed in a matter of weeks.

It will be equally swift here. Sooner than we imagine. Adios, comrades!

I could read your writing all day. You're special. Keep going...

Hey, you stole my name!