facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Not what Founders had in mind



Published: Wed, December 19, 2012 @ 12:00 a.m.

Not what Founders had in mind

I write this letter in despair and anger. I feel horrified and terrified. The events in Newtown, Conn., have sickened us all. Is this now the new normal? Where is anyone safe? Not in a shopping mall, not in a place of worship, not at a political event, and certainly not in a school.

As I watched the gut wrenching news coverage of this senseless incident I prayed to God that now maybe something will be done by the government to take that first step toward reinstituting the ban on assault weapons, the only purpose of which is to hunt people. These weapons were meant for the military and safety forces, not the average citizen, whether his/her intentions were innocent or evil. I frankly don’t care what the NRA has to say about it. When is this country going to get it — the NRA does not run this country, the president and the Congress do. We keep hearing “Now is not the time.” Seriously?

Now before some readers go all Second Amendment on me, I assure you, I am in favor of gun ownership as our forefathers had intended. Our wise forefathers insisted on the right to bear arms for “traditional lawful purposes” and for “orderly liberty.” I take no issue with a sane, lawful adult purchasing guns for protection, collection or hunting. But gun activists now seem to buy them to somehow find their manhood. We have all seen gun devotees on news footage with a gun strapped to their thigh to make a point. Their “point” aside, they look like overgrown children playing cops and robbers. Does anyone really think our forefathers had assault weapons in mind when they enacted the Second Amendment in 1791? We were dealing with muskets then, people. How many young, innocent children could young Mr. Lanza have killed if he had to stop to keep reloading his musket?

It is ironic that Adam Lanza’s mother, who purchased the guns used for this carnage and had “survival issues,” was undone by her own son.

I keep flashing back to that iconic vision of Charlton Heston holding up a rifle and pronouncing “They will have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.” We are left with having to pry a symbolic rose out of the cold, dead hands of a six year-old.

Jean Kimmel, Poland


Comments

1charms(228 comments)posted 2 years ago

"Does anyone really think our forefathers had assault weapons in mind when they enacted the Second Amendment in 1791? We were dealing with muskets then, people. How many young, innocent children could young Mr. Lanza have killed if he had to stop to keep reloading his musket?"

When the Second Amendment was enacted, EVERYONE had muskets. Now, everyone has the latest technology of this day, which are semi-automatic pistols and yes, assault rifles.

The fact that these weapons are more effective in killing people just goes along with all advancements in the world.

I hate to think that my ability today to protect my family would end with merely a musket.

We have a larger societal problem here. And the reckless banning of guns to law-abiding citizens will not solve it.

Suggest removal:

2HappyBob(285 comments)posted 2 years ago

What the second amendment actually says is this:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There seems to be nothing about hunting, sporting, recreation or personal protection.

I agree that there is a large societal problem here, and the problem has many facets that should be addressed. One of those facets is the easy access to weapons that are intended for
military use.

Suggest removal:

3papa1(696 comments)posted 2 years ago

what our so- called forefathers,a handful of slave-owners who were also against womens' rights, had in mind is today obsolete and even ridiculous. even considering that it enables homeowners to protect themselves against the federal government, pick any gun you want, i'll bet on the tank. these semi and fully automatic killing machines should be illegal except for military use.

Suggest removal:

4Woody(452 comments)posted 2 years ago

The 2nd amendment is not about shooting sports, it is not about hunting rifles, it is about affording protection to the citizens of this country from a tyranical government and/or foreign invasion, as well as protection from the threat of bodily harm. One could argue that the Second Amendment should be first, as it protects the others. So yes, military style firearms, are and should be protected by the 2nd amendment. The free excercise of that amendment being limited, due to gun free zones (amazing how many of these incidents happen is places where gns are not allowed) potentially caused more lives to be taken than needed. The principal of that school was gunned down trying to stop the punk. I wish she had her own weapon, and rudimentry training and could have at least had a chance. More often than not, once these losers are confronted by a return of force, they end it themselves by taking their own lives. A concealed carry holder potentially saved lives by just being there with a gun at the mall shooting on Oregon. He didn't even have to fire a shot.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

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

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

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

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

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

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

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

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

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

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Suggest removal:

5papa1(696 comments)posted 2 years ago

how about when anyone buys a home they are issued one musket for home protection?

Suggest removal:

6uselesseater(229 comments)posted 2 years ago

Great post @Woody.

Why is this liberal trash paper pumping all this anti-gun rhetoric?

It shall be said, a disarmed, fractured and ill population will resort to killing each other with something else.

This is from 2010:

SIX people a week are stabbed to death on the streets of Broken Britain.
Latest figures show a shocking 332 fatalities in a year — the worst toll since records began.

Further:

In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.

In England and Wales alone — discounting Scotland — there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.

By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.

In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.

In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).

In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

Suggest removal:

7cambridge(3102 comments)posted 2 years ago

I've never understood what could change a normal person into such a coward that they feel the need to be constantly armed or posses hand guns and/or military style weapons.

I don't know if they got picked on as kids or what, I'm guessing they're trying to make up for being small in the pants. It's obvious these gun nuts have self esteem issues and they need their guns to feel better about themselves and less frightened of everyday life.

It's ironic that these defectives with self esteem issues that feel unsafe without their guns are exactly the ones who should never be allowed near a gun.

Suggest removal:

8redeye1(4699 comments)posted 2 years ago

@Cambridge I like to collect guns and No, I'm not the type of person who is paranoid. I just enjoy shooting all sorts of weapons. No they don't make me great or anything like that, its just that I enjoy shooting. Just like you who probably smokes cigars and drinks. You have your way of enjoying life and I have mine.

Suggest removal:

9uselesseater(229 comments)posted 2 years ago

Problem is @cambridge, the folks that break laws just obviously don't care about the laws. It's an age old story.

Most of these shoot em up mass killers seem to have a lot in common:

1. Moderately dorky
2. Pre existing mental health issues
3. Often on serotonin uptake drugs.

As far as finger banging legal gun owners and making penis commentary, give me a break.

Who possess military "style" weapons? What in the world is such a gun?

How about you go live on the South Side of Ytown for a month and let me know if you prefer to be armed or unarmed? Fact is, guns are used every day legally to deal with folks acting illegally.

I know, your homeboy in the WHitehouse is riding the anti gun grabbing hoopla. All these clowns you like, well odd, that they have masses of heavily armed security around them. Is that a penis problem on their part or do they realize they aren't bulletproof?

Suggest removal:

10papa1(696 comments)posted 2 years ago

i'm tired of people saying if it wasn't a gun it would be something else. a couple of years ago in china a lunatic attacked a classroom full of kids with a knife and guess what? nobody was killed. what if that knife had been a bushmaster?

Suggest removal:

11cambridge(3102 comments)posted 2 years ago

useless....It seems like the first half of your comment describes other paranoid gun nuts like yourself.

Military "style" weapons are the "style" of weapons used by the military and favored by coward gun nuts.

The last paragraph describes what a public person like the President of the United States of America has to do to protect himself from those same coward gun nuts.

Suggest removal:

12uselesseater(229 comments)posted 2 years ago

It's funny you describe someone as "paranoid" for exercising the 2nd Right guaranteed to them as a citizen. That right is there right after the 1st which gives one the right to run ones mouth.

Do you think the founders intentionally arranged those two rights in the order they did? Notice they didn't make guns 8th on the list and speech 10th, now, did they?

What does "style" have to do with a weapon? It's like putting a wing on a station wagon and calling it a race car, it isn't such a thing.

The military uses typically very different weapons than civilians. Although to folks like you a squirt gun might make you pee your pants. Again, it wasn't assault weapons mass killing people in these media zoo stories. It is handguns and rifles.

The M16 is far most popular military weapon. Depending on military and branch they run slightly different models.

To look at the difference between these, look at rounds the weapon can discharge:

12–15 rounds/min sustained
45–60 rounds/min semi-automatic
700–950 rounds/min cyclic

See, the civilian weapon at best would yield the semi-auto numbers, not the fully auto numbers that are over 10x faster/greater.

Suggest removal:

13uselesseater(229 comments)posted 2 years ago

@papa1

"i'm tired of people saying if it wasn't a gun it would be something else. "

Read my post above about knives. It says it all.

People have been killing each other as far back as history records. There's no stopping it. It's some defect in humans.

What can we expect to happen today when children are drowning in violence on television, in their video "games" and many communities? What did we think would happen when we flushed mothers out of the home and into the workforce and left infants to be raised by minimum wage workers?


III VIOLENCE
Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000
Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000
Percentage of Americans who believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem: 79

[source: http://www.csun.edu/science/health/do...

Suggest removal:

14cambridge(3102 comments)posted 2 years ago

useless....There is no way a squirt gun would make me pee my pants, I'm not you. I walk the streets unarmed everyday and when I'm back visiting Ytown I always tour the south side because it's where I grew up. The last time someone threatened me with a gun I told him I'd take that gun from him and stick it up his a$$. You what he did? Nothing. Know why? Because he's a coward.

Maybe you can explain your fears and how guns help you feel like a real man....sometimes. Maybe a psychologist will read your post and offer you some help.

Suggest removal:

15AndrewCarmichael9(1 comment)posted 2 years ago

2nd Amendment Rights?
Where does the constitution provide a right to have firearms to hunt?
Where does the Constitution provide a right to have firearms to go target shooting?
Where does the constitution provide a right to have firearms for personal protection?

Suggest removal:

16paulparks(235 comments)posted 2 years ago

Andrew,

Where does the Constitution guarantee the right to an abortion?

Suggest removal:

17Ira_Zinman(1 comment)posted 2 years ago

The framers of the Bill of Rights (nor the English Bill of Rights, from whence it came) did not imagine linotype, telephones, cinema, radio, TV, or the internet. Yet discourse using of all of these technologies is protected by the First Amendment. Pretending that, since semi-auto rifles and metallic cartridges didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted, these tools of 'the right to bear arms' are not protected by the Second Amendment is laughable. And 'assault rifle' is a pop media term, for a semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip. With or without the plastic pistol grip (a purely cosmetic affectation), semi-auto, .223 rifles are in use by hundreds of thousands of hunters, ranchers, and farmers, in North America. The AR-15 platform is functionally equal to any other semi-auto rifle, and has about as much in common with 'military' rifles as an H3 Hummer does with an Army Humvee.

Bear in mind, as well, that the Obama Administration also has little use for the First Amendment. When the embassy in Benghazi was attacked, Obama and co. quickly blamed the events on the film Innocence of Muslims. With Dianne Feinstein running damage control for the administration, on the Benghazi incident, leveraging an 'assault rifle' ban as a distraction seems to be what is happening.

Suggest removal:

18papa1(696 comments)posted 2 years ago

forget the old white guys in he triangular hats. their outdated opinions and rules don't apply in todays' complicated world. it was a great start but now it's obsolete. it's time for some modern "forefathers". men and women with high intelligence and thoughtfulness who can deal with todays' problems.

Suggest removal:

19redeye1(4699 comments)posted 2 years ago

cambridge I now know for sure that you are full of BS. You didn't tell anyone that tyou would shove their weapon up their arse. You would be dead by now and not typing something so idiotic.

Suggest removal:

20VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 2 years ago

Just as with transportation, firearms have evolved over time. We still ride horses for pleasure, but we drive 250 horsepower vehicles on a daily basis. Some of us like traveling in 638 horsepower Corvettes. Abuse of power, probably, but no one has banned Corvettes.

As in transportation, the rifle has evolved and the semi-auto AR-15 platform has become a very popular firearm in America with shooters, hunters, collectors and law enforcement. There are hundreds of variations of this platform today because they are more accurate and can be had in many different calibers from .22 to .50 caliber and have become popular hunting rifles.

Semi-auto rifles have been around for over 60 or 70 years. They are not something new. This AR platform has replaced many of the old semi-auto rifles of the past 60 or 70 years , but they still fire the same way the older rifles do... one bullet at a time. As a matter of fact, shotguns today can be more lethal than an AR rifle. But no one is vilifying shotguns. They vilify the AR rifle because it "looks" like a military rifle, but in truth there is no comparison.

Suggest removal:

21paulparks(235 comments)posted 2 years ago

Seriously,

Obviously, I was talking about the Supreme Court's so-called "interpretation" of the Constitution - which includes evolving attitudes about the Amendments - beyond the strict language of those Amendments.

Andrew was taking an unrealistic, simplistic, reading of the 2nd Amendment - while totally ignoring Supreme Court interpretation, which is the law of the land.

Suggest removal:

22uselesseater(229 comments)posted 2 years ago

@cambridge,

You don't walk any streets pal. You live in your Commyfornia cul de sac around your insulated dopiated neighbors.

I highly doubt you are piping off when someone had a gun upside your big mouth. Folks like you end up dead every day for being a tough guy with velvet skin and mush for brains.

Calling a person a coward for not shooting you? There's some liberal confusion. Is the guy not a coward for shooting you then?

I know why folks like you are afraid of guns, because you are scared of any show of force. Scared of becoming a real man and defending yourself and your family. You couldn't beat your way out of a paper bag. You expect god, wait you don't believe in god, you expect a good Samaritan to intervene, you expect the police to play the role of real man and rescue you. No one is going to protect you when force shows up but maybe yourself, if you find the spine to. Lisping and flailing around and peeing your pants isn't an adequate defense.

The 2nd Amendment says clearly:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A militia is needed in order to have a free state. People have absolute right to own and carry firearms. PERIOD.

The problem with jokers like you @cambridge, is you just don't understand words and refuse to learn from history. You like repeating the same lessons.

The founders language and necessity about guns goes way back to much earlier times in England.

1285 Statute of Winchester established the requirement that "anyone else who can afford them shall keep bows and arrows." Later, it became mandatory that people own longbows equal to their height and that leisurely time be spent with and sport around the bow.

The prices of bows were even regulated to make sure they were available to all citizens.

Why were bows so valued and mandatory? Long bows were capable of piercing knights armor. They were the most effective weapons of that period.

Go read about the 16th century English Civil War where the King's army abused the peasant class, pillaged and destroyed equal to what they had fighting foreign enemies. The put standing army's in the homes and on lands of the people. Language that clearly was repeated and outlawed by our founding fathers and for obviously good reason.

King James II used the ruse of shooting and hunting as the reason for gun confiscation.

It was the Hunting Act of 1671 that attempted to disarm non landowning citizens. How convenient since the landowners were the royalty.

Armed population have remained free for long periods of time (hundreds of years), while unarmed populations are overtaken by foreign enemies in less than a human lifetime.

Suggest removal:

23uselesseater(229 comments)posted 2 years ago

See guns and militias are necessary to have a civilized functioning country or even a town. The armed and trained citizens are an ever present force against criminals, foreign enemies and even government behaving in illegal ways. The also serve as a tool for dealing with wild animals and for hunting to feed oneself.

As for you last dig @cambridge, "explain your fears and how guns help you feel like a real man"

I fear no man. Unlike you I've actually been shot before by a criminal in a robbery. .22 caliber shot just left of my spine.

Keep running your mouth you insulated moron. Perhaps you would be suitable for citizenship in Russia or China where you can be gleefully disarmed and routinely bulldozed.

Suggest removal:

24cambridge(3102 comments)posted 2 years ago

useless....you make me laugh. The guy with the gun didn't shoot me because he's a coward just like every other low life that needs a gun to "fear no man". Any psychologist reading your rants would identify you as defective.

Tell me how happy you were that gun was easily gotten by whoever shot you. He probably stole it from some gun nut just like you.

It seems the more you talk about your guns the braver you get. You claim "I fear no man", truth be told it seems you fear all men. I'm guessing you sit down to pee.

Maybe I'll drop you a note and let you know the next time i'm in town. I'll walk Hillman St. from one end to the other, you can follow at a safe distance locked in your car with your weapons. Afterwords you can sleep next to your night lite hugging your guns.

I have to admit, the fact that you have these irrational voices in your head makes me smile. :-)

Suggest removal:

25uselesseater(229 comments)posted 2 years ago

You are a cartoon @cambridge. A common heckler.

People use guns to commit crimes because the message is clear. Big mouths like you spout, allegedly in said situations. But gun involved, you shut your mouth, quit telling fictional tales. Don't know who you are trying to kid with your tough guy routine.

Where do thugs get guns? Obviously from gun manufacturers. Whether or not anyone was in the middle is a big question. All the mass shooters had legal guns, legally purchased and they were civilian firearms. They weren't stolen. My crossing paths with one, who knows, stolen or borrowed I'd guess.

Unsure how you confused me with being a gun nut. Because I am not. I'd be just as loud if they were attacking the first Amendment and seeking to remove YOUR tongue and sew YOUR mouth shut.

I like how you are the resident psychologist. Just like a liberal, label anyone in opposite as crazy. You are just as bad as the so called loons you claim to be opposite of. Fundamentalist liberal stooge.

Keep spouting your absolute stupidity, you are a commie bastard dyed in the stained wool of my ancestor blood. Only communists and their deadly ilk want to disarm the American citizenry.

As far as Hillman and taking a walk, whenever, wherever. I've lived in far more tortured settings; you only chatterbox from the cul-de-sac.

Suggest removal:

26cambridge(3102 comments)posted 2 years ago

useless....so now the voices are telling you I'm a "commie bastard dyed in the stained wool of my ancestor blood". LOL who the f... talks that way? Everyone of your rants prove all the more that you are exactly the kind of nut that should never be near a gun. Get yourself some help, you know....for the voices.

Suggest removal:

27Askmeificare(711 comments)posted 2 years ago

Jean Kimmel,

I'm not a hater, but still, who the Hell are you to know what the Founding Fathers intended?

You also stated, "When is this country going to get it — the NRA does not run this country, the president and the Congress do."

Really?!

I want to begin my dissertation with, "Here's what YOU don't understand..." but I don't have that kind of time.

Happy Holidays and Merry Xmas!

Suggest removal:

28uselesseater(229 comments)posted 2 years ago

Let's see if history lesson sinks into brains here.

Cambridge, face it, you are a commie. Anyone out to unarm citizens and poke the 2nd Amendment has to seriously consider that they live in the wrong country. You pick which other organized illness you subscribe to, cause it isn't the Republican or even pure Democratic one.

I don't often say this, but, if you don't believe in the basics this country was founded on, then perhaps you should find a new country to live in or ask California to secede.

"the second amedent was written we had no real standing military "

That's false. The Brits parked their cowardly soldiers in homes here in the US, destroyed farms, killed masses of animals, did all sorts of stuff. Many lives and fortunes were lost due to that prolonged harboring of soldiers in homes.

The founders knew of the then recent history of soldiers of the crown and what they had done in Britain to the citizens. The Brits have a long history of militia and necessity of such to combat the wealth class and their hired army. (Do you think today anything is different?)

The US at that time did not have a military, as the country could not and was unwilling to have a paid military. Paid militaries have proven ineffective and cowardly over and over. Thus, as in Britain, the military was to be of the people and for the people, a militia. People that stood to lose or gain everything including their own wealth, health and varied fortunes.

"If wher you live is so bad why don't you move."

If reality sucks, why don't you commit suicide? Giving up, getting out, etc. isn't a solution. You deal with reality and ideally make a change that is positive, instead of purely abandoning and dumping more crap on areas and people who also deserve to have a quality life. I refuse to move, no one should be forced from their home or neighborhood for any reason, ever. Especially not in places where over half of the taxpayer funding goes to police.

Militias are fine. Many of the weekenders are former military folks, they are not nerd role players or video game dweebs like these ahole mass shooting perps.

Suggest removal:

29cambridge(3102 comments)posted 2 years ago

useless....thanks for the entertainment and good luck with that paranoia thing but you're getting boring and I always feel less intelligent after reading your rants. I'm off to do something more interesting, like stare at my shoes.

Suggest removal:

30jojuggie(1478 comments)posted 2 years ago

Trying to convince Cambridge, IM, gdog, etc. of anything is impossible. They have one track Ytown minds. Nothing goes in & nothing comes out.
I've tried hard to make sense to no avail.
Thank God the new year is fast approaching, because I'm going to make a resolution to limit my participation on this message board.

Suggest removal:

31uselesseater(229 comments)posted 2 years ago

Why don't you take your big ego and giant head and go plug the San Andreas fault with it @cambridge?

Attack the foundation of this country and expect to get read the riot act for it.

Suggest removal:

32norman891(2 comments)posted 1 year, 12 months ago

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." -- Benjamin Franklin.

I think Mr. Franklin said it more eloquently and succinctly than I could and I shan't try to add to his point.

Suggest removal:

33realitylesson(13 comments)posted 1 year, 12 months ago

It is understandable the cry for the bans. And 2nd amendment or not if they would curb the violence one iota, do it. Trouble is, it wont. you can talk other countrys all you want, irrelevant. Heroin is illegal, noone who wants it goes without. PCP illegal, readily available. You think someone that goes to the trouble of planning these mass murders would quit if they had to plan on how to get the weapons?

A banner I saw says it all, "those that think banning guns is a solution to the violence, criminals dont pay attention to laws dumb***" it has always been illegal to kill people. they dont care. And what is the point if you cant eliminate access? Making them illegal doesnt restrict access, it just changes the market.

Suggest removal:

34oldskool(97 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Well all of you that want to take away our "ARMALITE RIFLES" (proper description) because you see no purpose in it or think that it should only hold 6 shots or that we alleged owners of these weapons are indeed paranoid or seeking to be vigilantees or whatever else you have worked up in your mind I say this, I do not think that some army is coming to my home to take my weapons! I would not grab an AR style weapon to stop an intruder too much to lug around and it would probably kill my neighbor! I and almost any person I know who may own an ARMALITE RIFLE shoot them in a safe secluded designated area. I don't have it to protect you, I just totally enjoy shooting off 60 rounds in a half of a minute because it gives me pleasure

Suggest removal:

35cambridge(3102 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

oldskool....take some viagra and you can go back to shooting in a half of a minute just like the old days and you wont even need the gun.

Suggest removal:

36fattynskinny(195 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

the second ammendment was meant for the people to be as well armed as the government. i take that to be with the same class of weapons as the government in order to protect oneself and family...there fore we should have access to the same weapons as the government to adequately protect ourselves, no matter how much they've evolved.

Suggest removal:

37clh323(2 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

The problem here is that our President and "progressive" activists who love to control as much as they can about us are typical take a mile if given an inch types. Yes, assault weapons may be their talking point, but total gun control is their goal. Make no mistake. Their rhetoric when preaching to the choir confirms this. It is also a issue of family culture. If you grew up as a sportsman, hunting and gun ownership seem as natural as baseball and soccer. The superiority and condecending attitudes that non-hunters show in conversations related to the subject would is almost amusing but their majority could be forced upon a 99.9% innocent minority.

Suggest removal:

38exlonghorn(35 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Bottom Line... the 2nd ammendment was meant to be the "reset" button on the Constitution.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes