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

« News Home

Limited gun restrictions don’t violate the Second Amendment

Published: Sun, March 10, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

Limited gun restrictions don’t violate the Second Amendment

After this last terrible shooting in the school in Newtown, Conn., we can expect some kind of action from the president on gun control; we can also expect reactions from the National Rifle Association.

The Second Amendment states, “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.”

I as a citizen do wholeheartedly agree with the founders and will fight to keep the amendment in place. In the 18th century when this amendment was written the only arms known were the sword, the muzzle-loader rifle and pistol. Both of these arms were single shot; they were heavy, awkward and took several seconds to reload. I don’t believe even Ben Franklin who I believe possessed the greatest foresight of the time could have foreseen how far advanced those muzzle-loaders would become.

We might visualize today a gunman walking into a crowded area armed with a muzzle-loader rifle and pistol. How many shots could he get off before he was taken down? Today a .22-caliber revolver is a deadly weapon. Would this weapon satisfy the founders at that time? I believe it would, because it would be a hundred times more efficient than what was then available.

The Founding Fathers would leave the type of weapons to the discretion of future generations. This brings us to the touchy situation facing us today. If we remove weapons from the public that are not needed and have been responsible for so many deaths, are we ignoring the Second Amendment? I think not, because we haven’t in any way removed the teeth from the amendment.

However, we should be careful that certain elements from the far left who are working to change the Constitution into a living document do not look upon any restriction of weapons as a green light allowing them to attack other segments of the document.

The question before us today is this: Do we need high-velocity full and semi-automatic rifles to protect our families and homes?

Leon White, Columbiana

Look again at Mahoning Ave.: Skid-row look is already there

I am writing about the recent article in The Vindicator about the thrift store on the West Side.

The owners may have done wrong, but the excuse of city Councilman Mike Ray isn’t fooling anyone. All he is worried about is the so-called saturation of thrift stores, giving Mahoning Avenue a “skid-row” appearance.

This is said as if the bars, tattoo parlors and car lots don’t give it this appearance already! I am 57 years old, born and raised on the West Side, and I am still here.

I can tell you that it was a lot nicer when I was young! So Mr. Councilman, get your priorities straight!

Dana Olsen, Youngstown

Three cheers for Kasich budget

Gov. John Kasich recently unveiled his new Ohio Jobs Budget 2.0, and while there has been much hoopla in the media since, one thing is clear: the governor’s budget is focused on doing the right thing for working families and job creators.

There are three main points of Gov. Kasich’s Jobs Budget 2.0 that show this. Reforming Ohio’s education funding, implementing common-sense tax reform, and standing up for Ohioans’ health care all indicate a clear emphasis on getting results, instead of the politics as usual we have come to know only too well here in Ohio.

Before John Kasich took office as Ohio’s governor, our state was hemorrhaging jobs and was billions of dollars in the hole.

Now Ohio leads the Midwest in job creation, and our state is on the right path. I for one am grateful that John Kasich has dedicated himself to expanding opportunity to learn, grow, work and have good health care for all Ohioans.

Suellen Blasdell, Canfield

Snowfall at Vienna airport often doesn’t match that in Boardman

If I had not already heard correct information to the contrary, as a Mill Creek Golf Course cross country skier, I still would have doubted the assertion in the March 2 story by David Skolnick that “The Valley” had received 20.3 inches of snow in February, making it the ninth snowiest February on record.

The skiing conditions on the golf course during the month hadn’t been that good for there to have been that much snow. I often found myself skiing over downed branches or over golf-cart trail gravel.

However, on a local television newscast, an anchor reported that while the National Weather Service Station at the regional airport in Vienna had recorded 20.3 inches of snow for the month, the total at his station (located in Boardman near the golf course) had been only 12 inches.

Thus the southern portion of “The Valley” received much less now than did the northern portion.

Perhaps global warming could explain this anomaly, since the Vienna airport is closer to Lake Erie and is thus more prone to the lake-effect snow squalls caused by cold air passing over the warmer waters of an ice-free lake.

Thus due to global warming, the amount of precipitation recorded at the airport may no longer reflect what has fallen on the entire Mahoning Valley, at least during the colder months.

Robert R. Stanger, Boardman

Heroes abound at American Red Cross of Mahoning Valley

March is Red Cross MONTH, and the American Red Cross recognizes our everyday heroes who help their community by giving of themselves — the volunteers, blood donors, class takers and financial supporters who help us assist those in need.

March also is a great time to become part of the American Red Cross by doing such things as developing a preparedness plan for the household, becoming a volunteer, giving blood or taking a Red Cross class.

The Red Cross responds to nearly 70,000 disasters a year in this country. It provides 24-hour support to members of the military, veterans and their families; collects and distributes about 40 percent of the nation’s blood supply and trains more than 7 million people in first aid, water safety and other life-saving skills every year.

Here in the Mahoning Valley, the American Red Cross of the Mahoning Valley in the past year responded to 523 local emergencies, assisted 807 members of military families and trained thousands of people in lifesaving skills. And, people from this area donated 11,250 units of blood.

We thank those whose generosity enables us to continue our work, and encourage everyone to become an everyday hero this month by helping their neighbors.

Karen E. Conklin, Warren Conklin is executive director of the American Red Cross of the Mahoning Valley.

There’s no balance in socialism

I’m so sick and tired of the Socialist propagandists in Washington, including President Obama, using the term “balanced” to describe their so-called approach to federal spending and budgets. And these Marxists use this term ad nauseam.

Let me be frank with no pun intended: The truth is there is no balanced approach to Socialism. Throughout history, it has always been “Government Take All, From All.” Period.

Frank Santolla, North Lima


1NoBS(2237 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

To Leon White - those muzzle-loaders and other firearms we now consider antiques were, in fact, the most advanced weapons of the day. Please stop trying to skew the facts.

And your scenario where the terrorist or nut case goes to a crowded area with his pistol and muzzle-loader? Why wouldn't he just bomb the whole place? Or do you think bombs are a relatively new idea?

So, who gets to decide which weapons "are needed" and which can be confiscated? Mr. White obviously is unaware that many hunting rifles are more powerful and more potentially lethal than those which he naively thinks of as "assault weapons."

To answer your question, Mr. White, Yes. I can elaborate, but those who need to hear it will refuse to listen.

Suggest removal:

2redeye1(5107 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Leon, The answer to your question is YES!

Suggest removal:

3GailsMom(16 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

All you fellows got it wrong.

How are you going to answer the Lord when He asks: You killed one of My children because he was stealing your TV. WHY?

The Lord will deliver to you the same measure of mercy that you show to His children.

Suggest removal:

4williamdiamon(1 comment)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Here are General Gage's orders on the day of April 18th 1775. You will notice the terms "cannon" and "military" arms. The same "terrible instruments or war" the English used. Stop skewing history to pretend our founding fathers were toothless.
Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment ’Foot,


Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.

You have a Draught of Concord, on which is marked the Houses, Barns, &c, which contain the above military Stores. You will order a Trunion to be knocked off each Gun, but if its found impracticable on any, they must be spiked, and the Carriages destroyed. The Powder and flower must be shook out of the Barrels into the River, the Tents burnt, Pork or Beef destroyed in the best way you can devise. And the Men may put Balls of lead in their pockets, throwing them by degrees into Ponds, Ditches &c., but no Quantity together, so that they may be recovered afterwards. If you meet any Brass Artillery, you will order their muzzles to be beat in so as to render them useless.

You will observe by the Draught that it will be necessary to secure the two Bridges as soon as possible, you will therefore Order a party of the best Marchers, to go on with expedition for the purpose.

A small party of Horseback is ordered out to stop all advice of your March getting to Concord before you, and a small number of Artillery go out in Chaises to wait for you on the road, with Sledge Hammers, Spikes, &c.

You will open your business and return with the Troops, as soon as possible, with I must leave to your own Judgment and Discretion.

I am, Sir,

Your most obedient humble servant
Thos. Gage
Remember, the 2nd protects the 1st. Cherish it.

Suggest removal:

5kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Love the way people use words like "limit" or "restrict" when trying to get around the 2A. They need to look up the word "infringe" in a dictionary and/or a thesaurus.

"infringe on or upon something intrude on, compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, diminish, disrupt, curb, encroach on, trespass on It's starting to infringe on our personal liberties."

(emphasis on the word "restrict" is mine to make sure you see it)
"in·fringe /ɪnˈfrɪnʤ/ verb
in·fring·es; in·fringed; in·fring·ing
2 : to wrongly limit or -->RESTRICT<-- (something, such as another person's rights) [+ obj] ▪ Her rights must not be infringed. [no obj] — + on or upon ▪ He argues that the proposed law infringes upon our guaranteed right of free speech."

Find a word that does not = infringe if you want to do something to 2A.

"...shall not be infringed" <--- why do people who call themselves educated have so much problem understanding what this means??

Suggest removal:

6Sensible(118 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

To kk80586
You should pass that bit of learning along to the Supreme Court.
They have a different opinion. Unfortunately for you, their opinion is the one that counts.

Suggest removal:

7kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

the sc is but one branch of gubmint and does not count any more than another. Just because a politically motivated court votes a certain way on any issue at any given time does NOT make it Constitutional.
I'm sure there were no criminals, children, mentally disturbed back when 2A was penned, correct? There are logical ways to deal with all 3 of those groups without infringing on 2A. The liberalization of America is the downfall. Why ruin America? If one does not like the Bill of Rights, one can move to any of a number of other countries that have constitutions more to their liking.

Suggest removal:

8Sensible(118 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

The legislative branch passed the background check law. The executive branch signed it into law. The Judicial branch upheld it.
Doesn't that cover all the branches of government?

You say there are logical ways to prevent guns from getting into the hands criminals, children and the mentally disturbed. Would you kindly tell the rest of us what your ideas are?

Suggest removal:

9kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

And they were all wrong, making knee jerks did nothing but hinder (see "infringe") law abiding citizens. You don't need to cite a stat about how a few criminals are caught on the background checks because most criminals aren't known for their brilliance and I'm sure they learned their lesson and next time just bought one on the street from another thug.
As I said, the liberalization of America is the downfall. If I have to spell it out for you... criminals should go to jail and serve the kind of time that they do NOT want to go back. They should serve long and full sentences. If they repeat, they should not get out again. I'm sick and tired of criminals having ALL the "rights". Children should be taught to respect firearms and be trained in the safe handling of same at an early age...perhaps safety as young as 6 or 7 and handling by 10 or 11 and respect at all ages. Mentally disturbed need to be put back into the institutions.
The gubmint and "legal" system had already put the camel's nose in the tent. Now, they want to exploit a couple tragedies to get him in up to his bung-hole. But don't worry, the elites will exempt themselves from whatever restrictions, limits or infringements they place or try to place on us (again).
As I have stated elsewhere (previously), I was never big time against the way things were/are, even though I probably should have been. But the tone has changed as the hypocrites in high places (re obama, feinstein, et al) are exploiting tragedies to pass their personal agendas. There is no proof that ANY infringement placed on rightful gun owners has ever actually stopped one crime or that one less person has been killed.

Suggest removal:

10Sensible(118 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

You say that all branches of the government are wrong. What are you doing about that?

"liberalization" is at fault. Your prescription is:
1) Longer (maybe harsher?) penalties for criminal behavior. Gun crime = hanging, Rape = castration, DUI = tongue removal, Theft = amputation, Drug/marijuana possession = lobotomization, Stalker = shoot out kneecaps etc, etc..
2) Legal system: suspects are given too many opportunities to get off, so we should eliminate defense lawyers, better yet let’s just drop having trials at all.
3) Mentally disturbed, mandatory institutionalization and lobotomies. Cost to be paid by their families or be subject to euthanasia
4) Teach gun safety early to children but put more guns in their hands while they are immature.

Is this your “ideal” world that would curb senseless random shootings?

Suggest removal:

11kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

That's a really good mischaracterization of what I wrote. Read it again, take out the extremist aspect that YOU added so you don't look so silly. If you took most of that from what I wrote, I guess that would explain why you (and people like you) have trouble comprehending something as simple as 2A.

Suggest removal:

12Sensible(118 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

I purposely made your points extreme, to demonstrate that how ill-defined your solutions are.

You say that criminals should be subject to punishment that would really cause them to think twice before committing the crime, or recommit. Is that a fair characterization of your thoughts?

I just suggested some really harsh punishments that could probably met your goals.

You say that he "legal system" provides too many "rights" to the accused and that "they" are "pushing the whole camel into the tent". I take that to mean that you are not satisfied with the justice system. Is that a fair characterization of your thoughts?

I just suggested some changes to the judicial system that could meet your goals.

You say that the mentally disturbed need to be institutionalized. Is that a fair characterization of your thoughts?

I just suggested that lobotomizing might be a kinder way of warehousing the mentally ill that could meet your goals. I suspect that you would not want the taxpayers stuck with the costs of these institutions.

As to comprehending the Second amendment, I rely on others who are much more scholarly than I, much more "learned in the law" to comprehend and interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I accept the dictates of Constitution Article 3 and Article 6 that grants the Judicial branch the authority to interpret and enforce the Constitution. As the Supreme Court is the court of last resort in the judicial system I accept their rulings, whether I agree with their ruling or not is immaterial.
The Supreme Court has decided that “the arms right” can be restricted and that gun possession can be regulated. To deny that ruling, is tantamount to proclaiming that the Constitutional authority in Article 3 and 6 is wrong.

Suggest removal:

13kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Now you say, "I just suggested". Originally you said, "Your prescription is:". The two are not compatible.
Probably, if you would have stopped after "1) Longer (maybe harsher?) penalties for criminal behavior.", that would have been a fair characterization of my thoughts. But the rest of the post immediately and continually delved into the ridiculous and you own all that.
As far as relying on others to comprehend the Bill of Rights for you....that may make you a good sheep but does nothing towards the furtherance of Freedom. The Bill of Rights were not meant to be "interpreted". The Bill of Rights are the fundamental rights of the people and restrictions on the gubmint. They are written in plain english and fairly simple sentences, not one bit of legalese. Most fourth or fifth graders can read and understand it.
BTW, I never said anything about " "rights" to the accused". I was lamenting ALL the "rights" for criminals (as opposed to almost none for victims).
Say I park my van in the grass beside my garage. It is legally licensed, insured and gets moved at least once a week. Cop gives me a ticket and even though it is in my backyard, because I live on a corner the stupid police chief won't drop it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The Bill of Rights is the SUPREME law of this Country.
Now say the sleazy guy down the street rapes some kid and gets arrested. The court throws out the conviction because the guys attorney suddenly remembers the sleaze never got "Mirandized". How come ignorance of the law IS an EXCUSE in this instance?
You only need to read the 5th to know that you don't have to say anything incriminating and can't be beat into a confession.
To find out you can't park (or stand) a vehicle anywhere on your property that is visible from the road if you live on a corner lot you have to go read all the laws of the city dealing with property and automobiles and I can only imagine how much reading and cross-referencing that would require.
So basically what your "scholarly" and much more "learned in the law" judges and law makers have done is remove ALL common sense (and a LOT of Freedom).

Suggest removal:

14Sensible(118 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

KK writes "The Bill of Rights were not meant to be interpreted. The Bill of Rights are the fundamental rights of the people...."

That claim leads to inevitably to conclude that criminals, children, and mentally disturbed have a constitutionally guaranteed unrestricted right to arms.

Does that sound sensible?

Suggest removal:

15kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

"YOU" might inevitably conclude that but I would read the Bill of Rights, apply some common sense (they had that back in the day) and conclude the following:
-- A sane, law-abiding, adult is constitutionally guaranteed (the) unrestricted right to arms (don't bring up ICBM's and F-16's, people who could even afford those are obviously not into crime).
-- Common sense says that a violent criminal who who wants a gun will get a gun no matter what limitations, restrictions or infringements you place on the law-abiding citizens. That criminal should serve a sentence that makes him/her NOT want to ever return to prison. Long, full sentence with hard labor and bread and water.
(the goat-humpers in Gitmo get lemon or honey in their iced-tea and all the harry potter they can watch... they eat better than I do).
-- Common sense says that a criminal who wishes to continue a life of (violent) crime even after serving that sentence will still get a gun no matter what limitations, restrictions or infringements you place on law-abiding citizens. That criminal should be pursued and thrown in prison for what would be essentially the rest of their life.
-- Common sense says that a violent criminal who murders should be put to death ASAP (after timely appeals and on overwhelming evidence of course)...2, 3 years at the outside.
-- Common sense says children are taught respect for guns and safety from a very early age but do not use guns (unsupervised) until they are MATURE enough to do so.
-- Common sense says that the loonies should be kept under lock and key (or closely supervised for those that are non-violent) because they will get a weapon no matter what limitations, restrictions or infringements you place on law-abiding citizens.
Common sense defeats straw-men every time.
Common sense says that---No, not every murder or mass shooting will be eliminated by the above, but neither will they be eliminated by limiting, restricting or otherwise infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. In fact, common sense says those infringements can actually increase those due to the law-abiding citizen being the only one unarmed.
They have already essentially banned actual assault rifles.
Now they want to ban scary looking guns.
What will be next when that doesn't work?
And after that?, and after that?, ...
We've seen that whittling away at 2A does not work, In fact there were a lot less murders and mass murders back in the days of less restrictions. It's only after all these so-called "scholarly" and "learned in the law" ideologues came along that we now have mass chaos. 20000 gun laws in this country and a looney toon can still steal a gun and kill 20+ women and children because not one law-abiding adult that was present possessed the resource that would have evened the odds (though some heroes tried even against the odds).

Suggest removal:

16kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Maybe we can excuse ourselves by saying that we had never anticipated this kind of carnage. But it HAS happened before (way back with a bomb) and we have had several hints at it in recent years (school and other mass shootings).
This Country has a Bill of Rights and it was given to us for a reason...and for dam good reason (for all of them). People who don't like Rights always have options but those options do NOT include the "assumed" right to take away my rights guaranteed by the "Bill of Rights".
2A is often referred to as the "Second Amendment" but in actuality it is Article 2 of the
Bill of Rights.
The powers that were did not want to have a "bill of Rights" but the people DEMANDED it.
They could have just said, "the people have the right to keep and bear arms" but they added something that does not appear in any other Article or Amendment..."shall not be infringed".
hmmmm, maybe there was a reason for this?

Suggest removal:

17HappyBob(285 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Note to Sensible:
You are wasting your time argue with lunatics or fools.

Suggest removal:

18Sensible(118 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

You said before that the Bill of Rights was not to be interpreted. That to me means that you believe that the Bill of Rights should be taken literally, each word meaning exactly what it says, nothing more nothing less.

Now you say that common sense should be applied.

You can't have it both ways.

The literal wording of the 2nd amendment says that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed “.
And yet Congress and most states have passed laws that prohibit people under 18 years of age from purchasing and owning "arms".

Are those laws unconstitutional? Or are they constitutional because of common sense?

And who makes the distinction?

You reject the notion that the SC should interpret the Constitution, you reject the laws passed by the legislative and executive bransches. "They all got it wrong".

You write that: "So basically what your "scholarly" and much more "learned in the law" judges and law makers have done is remove ALL common sense and then go on to suggest that It's only after all these so-called "scholarly" and "learned in the law" ideologues came along that we now have mass chaos".

You plead for "common sense" to be applied but not to the Constitution. Tell me how are you going to get there?

Suggest removal:

19kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

"You can't have it both ways." Not trying to....common sense can be applied to anything. Maybe I wasn't clear. People need to have "common sense" about the Rights and the Freedom we were given. The gubmint needs to stay out of those Rights. The gubmint can make laws but not laws that "infringe" on those Rights (especially one that says "shall not be infringed"). A person with common sense does not yell fire in a crowded theater. Some idiot must have. There must have been at least one death because they made a law to prevent it from happening again. I'm sure it happened again and probably will happen again. But the law says is you can't yell fire in the theater(or say bomb on a plane). I would accept that law as Constitutional and common sense (because with some people common sense NEEDS to be legislated). You still have the Freedom to yell "fire" it's just that there will be a penalty for doing something so stupid.
Now let's compare that law (which limits free speech) to the laws they pass regarding 2A.
The ONLY people affected adversely by any existing gun restrictions (infringements) that I can think of at the moment are law-abiding citizens.
--None but the dumbest of criminals would submit to a background check. Criminals will get guns by many and any means without going through an ffl. No common sense/unconstitutional.
--ONLY law-abiding citizens are restricted on when and where they can carry open or concealed. A criminal can carry anywhere, anytime. No common sense/unconstitutional.
--Under 18 cannot own a firearm. Many over 18 are not "mature" enough to own a sling shot and many much younger than 18 are "mature" enough to own one and use it properly for target or hunting. The law infringes on these youngsters. The law did nothing to stop the shooting up by Cleveland and many like it.
No common sense/unconstitutional.
The examples given are the same as if I get a law passed that says we cover peoples mouth with duct tape because they MIGHT yell fire in the theater.
The law-abiding people will leave the tape on but thugs will tear it off and yell anyway. No common sense/unconstitutional.
It's about Freedom and the Bill of Rights guarantees that Freedom.
We've already lost so much, why give it all away?
I did just think of one law that enforces common sense and is Constitutional
--Some fools with no common sense shot up the town (for fun) one night so laws got passed that you cannot discharge weapons in the city limits.
Some could (or did) get hurt. So the law does have common sense AND because 2A says nothing about discharging a weapon, (only keeping and bearing shall not be infringed) it passes Constitutional muster.

Suggest removal:

20kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

"Tell me how are you going to get there?" -- I DO apply common sense to the Constitution and wish all people would. Then gubmint would not have an excuse to snatch up Rights, Constitutionally or otherwise (usually otherwise).
The Bill of Rights is written in plain english...there are no wherefores, to wits, or other legalese. They are not laws that can be changed or repealed, they are RIGHTS. Otherwise we just sheep to whatever law fancies the whim of the gubmint. People seem to understand that they can say what they want and understand that they cannot be made to say anything but that one in the middle confuses the he|| out of them. NONE or our Rights are confusing. They weren't speaking in parables, no real difficult words that you might need to go to the dictionary, no ambiguity. Are you suggesting we just throw away the Bill of Rights?

Suggest removal:

21kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

sorry ksu, but under that logic "of any variety they might choose", the gubmint could restrict (infringe) us to .177 cal single shot pistols.
With the idiots in the world today I would not like to see every tom, dick, and harry having claymores.
However, it is the concession of the people that leads to those kind of restrictions (infringements). It is those kind of concessions that make lawmakers today think they can just keep restricting a little more, and a little more, and a little more... until that right is totally gone.
Actually (and I have said this before), I am not so much against the rules and restrictions (infringements) that currently exist. Maybe as someone who believes the Bill of Rights is the basis of this Country I should be against those?
But a line has to be drawn somewhere or they will keep going and going until our Rights are gone. The killings will not stop by banning scary features. Assault weapons are already heavily regulated. An AR15 is NOT an assault weapon. If you remove the scary looking furniture (hand guard rails) and replace them with a piece of wood....If you remove the pistol grip and install a shorter one (most all rifles have basically a pistol grip in front of the stock)...if you remove the adjustable stock and replace with a non-adjustable stock, what you are left with is basically a .223 rifle. It does the exact same thing but looks like crap.
There actually IS a Constitutional impediment on the "assault weapon ban" contained in those four simple words "shall not be infringed".
It's a restriction. "restrict" is a synonym of "infringe". As I conceded, there already are infringements on 2A, some which I even think I might agree with. It has been restricted to the point that people who care about this country and the Bill of Rights (our Freedom) are saying enough is enough. 2a is there for a reason and the fact that the Founders SPECIFICALLY stated that the gubmint shall NOT infringe on that right tells me I don't want to give up that Right.
It's an inalienable Right given to us by the Founders. It's not up for debate. (Of course, supposed "law" makers will try to debate it because they can't read plain english or hate Freedom for us common folk).

Suggest removal:

22Sensible(118 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

No , I'm certainly NOT saying anything like " throw away the Bill of Rights". If I implied or led you to think that I'm sorry.

Just trying to be sure I understand your position and comments. So the law that infringes on a pre-18 year old right to arm is alright with you because it is common sense applied to the "right". Did I get that correct?

I suspect that law was passed ny politicians (the government) because it was a common sense infringement of the Second Amendment right for (all) people to keep and bear arms.

Would a law that prevents the easy purchase of firearms from persons that are mentally disturbed a common sense infringement of the Second Amendment right for (all) people to keep and bear arms.

You said immediately above that the Second amendment is there for a reason. What do you think that reason was?

Interesting point. Although you can see that KK has a lot to say about what is and what is not an “assault” weapon. Maybe the bill should be “a ban on certain types of firearms” Personally don’t really care whether they are called assault weapons or black scary weapons or firearms that are designed to inflict maximum carnage.

I think that there are laws (hopefully) that prohibit or regulate ownership of the weapons you mention.

If there are these laws (and I would submit that they meet KK’s common sense test), and I presume that they have passed “constitutional muster”, why couldn’t the BSW (big scary weapons) also pass constitutional muster.

I think your probably right, it has more to do with popularity. I heard it estimated that there are some 4 million AR-15’s floating about the USA. And they do give a thrill (although not some much of a cheap thrill these days). So yeah, it’s more like the possibility of losing an adrenaline high than a real concern about rights. The “rights” shipped out years and years ago.

Suggest removal:

23kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

No. Common sense would dictate that there should be no (gubmint) infringement (though parents may have a say). Some people under 18 are mature enough to own a gun. Some people over 18 are NOT mature enough.
"Would a law that prevents the easy purchase of firearms from persons ..."
If you are saying what I think you were trying to say...my answer is as I have already stated. Lock up the violent ones, keep an eye on the rest. I have also stated previously that if they don't push for stupid infringements on 2A that I could live with what we have. That includes background checks. That does NOT include banning a rifle because it looks different but performs like any other rifle (1 bullet for 1 pull of the trigger).
Ask a cop or a vet if they would rather have an "assault weapon" or an AR15. I just want people to use correct terminology.
"...firearms that are designed to inflict maximum carnage".
Didn't the punk in Arizona inflict "maximum carnage"? When the ban on scary looking guns fails to stop the mass shooters then you will want to ban all the pistols and other rifles and big gulps.
"why couldn’t the BSW (big scary weapons) also pass constitutional muster."
Because it is just a rifle but looks like a military rifle which actually IS an "assault weapon".
You would not call the gun used in Arizona an "assault weapon"?
You would not call the box-cutters used on the flight attendants of Flight 93 "assault weapons"?
Why not? They don't look scary?
" So yeah, it’s more like the possibility of losing an adrenaline high than a real concern about rights."
Don't be confused about me. I am nothing but Bill of Rights. Don't know what "thrill" you are talking about other than the thrill I get when my aim hits the center of the target (usually I only hit the target and am just mildly happy). I have shot maybe 200 times in my life (that's bullets, not gun outings). And that is a liberal estimate. Fifty rounds of that was through an actual "assault rifle" in Basic. At least another 100 rounds got ate up on the other 3 times I have had training and/or had to qualify with a handgun.
There probably are a few people like you describe "losing an adrenaline high than a real concern about rights" but looking at gun sales to first time buyers says most are concerned. The more they threaten to ban, take, further infringe, the more people say "hey, I better get mine now".
"The “rights” shipped out years and years ago."
To some extent yes. Do you want to just give up what we have left? Maybe be just like Cuba?

You asked about "What do you think that reason was?". I know the reason. If you honestly don't know..go to youtube and search for "Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment". She explains it more eloquently and succinctly than I could and saves a lot of typing. (Watch the entire video, even after she is done testifying to congress).

Suggest removal:

24Sensible(118 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

She takes 9.5 minutes to explain what she thinks "the reason" was. I'm asking you what you think the reason is. And I think that you could probably express it in less than 50 words.

The adrenaline high is hard to disguise:
http://youtu.be/ks5idq69MN4. Lots of other videos that are demonstrating the fun and thrill of the AR-15. http://youtu.be/kjiPGoLI-Bw

Colorado Legislature passed the 15 round clip limit and expanded background checks to all private sales today. Govenor says he'll sign.

Suggest removal:

25Sensible(118 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago


As regards the mentally disturbed, your plan to lock up "the violent ones" and "keep an eye on the rest" is impractle. You will not know someone is violent until they commit a violent act. How did that work with Adam Lanza?

Who would you have monitor the mentally disturbed before a violent act is committed?

Do you think that those people that you want to "keep an eye on" , should be able to purchase firearms, or for that matter be given firearms. (see the latest bar shooting incident in Pittsburgh-s shooters man is Mazzocco)

The background check discussion acknowledges that prohibited people may stil get firearms, the intention of the background check expansion is to make it more difficult. Right now, because of legal loopholes, it is relatively easy.

On the topic of gun ownership by children, you say " Common sense would dictate that there should be NO (gubmint) infringement" (on the "right" of a child to purchase/possess a firearm). That thinking is unbelievable! You are nutty!

Suggest removal:

26Sanjay1976(42 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Mixed emotions on this,

On Sunday 3/13 a 50 year old man shot himself in the head and died during a handgun course at a Bellevue Wash gun range. The suicide was performed in front of a dozen other class participants. According to a witness, the man appeared “lonely and deflated and never spoke to anyone in the class”. Luckily he only turned the weapon on himself. The gun range provides the firearms and ammunition. -

Guess that the West Coast Armory thought that he was "stable" enough.

Suggest removal:

27kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Ms, Hupp hit the nail on the head. Yes that is the reason. If you google "Bill of Rights" there is a lot of info. Look for the actual quotes of the Founders. That tells a lot.
A LOT of people have died to protect that "Bill of Rights" and the Freedoms contained therein. A LOT more people will die because there will always be enemies (both foreign and domestic) of Freedom.
Yes, I had already stated there are a few who probably shoot guns for a "thrill". Nothing illegal about that. Heather says that the BFS turns a regular AR15 into fully automatic. She is very mistaken. BFS has none of the functionality of a full auto. Full autos are HEAVILY regulated. With BFS you still get 1 bullet for 1 trigger pull. The atf has approved the BFS. If I were looking for full auto capability I would not rely on BFS. They are not the same. Actually, the same thing can be done with several types of rifles even without the BFS...just takes a little more practice. That does not make those rifles "full auto" either. Nor does it make them "assault rifles". Ask any cop or service member if they would rather have an assault rifle or a AR15 equipped with BFS.
After much knee-jerking..."Colorado Legislature passed..."
--- Several states are introducing legislation to increase public safety and prevent the trampling of Freedoms, such as elimination of criminal protection zones and preventing a tyrannical gubmint from coming to take your rightfully owned property.
Magpul will likely leave Colorado and go elsewhere taking the jobs (100's) and revenues with it and the law-abiding citizens will have 15 round mags after big infractions of their privacy by a maniacal state... the criminals and loonies will still get what they want with no check at all.
Colt may leave Connecticut if that state remains on it's path or Right's infringement. That factory has been there for 175 years...less than a generation after the founding of the Country. A piece of American history. That's a lot of jobs and revenue that could go to another state (and several are already sending invitations).
-- "the 15 round clip limit"
The Arizona and Aurora shooters were not limited to "15 round clip"(s). Both shootings were stopped ONLY because the guns jammed. If the guns had not jammed they might still be shooting. Higher capacity magazines are more prone to jam or cause jamming. It takes little more than a second to swap out a magazine. Two 15 round mags weigh little more than one 30 round mag.
Possibly the only intelligent thing HappyBob (aka SerioulyNow) ever said was...(paraphrasing)..."you two will never agree".
I am pro-America, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-Constitution, pro-Freedom. You appear to be against those (or at least want to water down).
Common sense laws such as putting gun crime violators in jail for long periods I have no problem with. Nonsensical knee-jerk laws which only affect law-abiding citizens and infringe on their Rights, not so much.

Suggest removal:

28kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

"I have the right to object to my elected representatives not only with my voice, not only with my letters, but with a gun. If my choice at the ballot box is not elected"
No. She did not even imply anything like that. It has nothing to do with elections and everything to do with a tyrannical gubmint. You seem to need to study up on how and why the Bill of Rights and rest of the Constitution came about. Then you will understand (or refuse to understand) why they would say "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms Shall Not be infringed.
"Sounds a bit anti-democracy." Not at all since she did not say or infer that it had anything to do with elections.
"On the topic of gun ownership by children..." ---maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think MATURE (underline the word "MATURE") youngsters, with parental permission and supervision should be prevented from owning weapons. I was merely trying to make the point that 18 is an arbitrary age...that some younger than 18 are mature and some over 18 are NOT mature.

sense- The Connecticut loonie slipped through some very wide cracks which should be closed.
He should have been restrained or monitored closely.
He would have used anything to carry out an attack. That one could have been prevented by removing criminal protection zones...he killed himself as soon as the guns arrived on the scene (same as the Oregon mall shooter and others). If he had seen a gun as soon as he walked in he might have just killed himself (or at least been stopped).
"the intention of the background check expansion is to make it more difficult"
I seriously doubt it. Slightly more difficult, maybe. But difficult enough to make a change to prevent a shooting by a maniac?...No. They are hell bent and do much planning. Their choice of weapons is almost endless...guns, bombs, vehicles, etc. Did you know that only about 3% of violent crimes are carried out with rifles? And that only a small percentage of those were scary looking? And one of those only killed 2 people (stopped by a concealed carrier who was carrying in a criminal protection zone)? (Not that 2 dead is good but I knew you would try to decry "ALL the carnage" so I pointed it out in advance.) The scary looking gun they want to try to ban does not even hold the record! I believe 32 were killed at Va Tech. Almost 3000 were killed on 9/11 and no gun was even used.

Suggest removal:

29HappyBob(285 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

"WE need guns to fight a tyranical government....

A man opened fire at a car wash and a barbershop in Mohawk, N.Y., last Wednesday morning, killing four people and wounding at least two others. 64-year-old Kurt Myers shot and killed two people at a nearby barbershop, then went to a car wash a mile away, where he killed two others. Guns and ammunition were found in his apartment. He was killed Thursday in a police shootout.

On Friday the mother of a man charged in a fatal shooting at a western Pennsylvania bar is now accused of having illegally provided her son with firearms. 25-year-old David Mazzocco has been charged in a shooting at the Fort Pitt Inn early Monday that killed 29-year-old James Adams and wounded two other people. Gloria Mazzocco, 60, was charged with conspiracy, violations of the uniform firearms act and providing a firearm to a person barred from possessing one.

Michael Boysen, a felon suspected of killing his grandparents last Friday night after they threw him a party upon his release from prison, was captured after a standoff with police at an Oregon hotel. Boysen, 26, was recently released from prison after a burglary conviction. Detectives learned from a search of computer data that Boysen had researched gun shows in Washington and Nevada, where sellers are not required to conduct background checks or maintain sale records. Boysen was apprehended after a standoff at the Westshore Oceanfront Suites in Lincoln City, Ore.

Were these guns used against a out-of-control government?

Suggest removal:

30HappyBob(285 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago


I don't know if you have to have a background check for a handgun course in Washington.
I don't know if you need any kind of qualification (above and beyond cash) in Ohio to be handed a gun for training.

Regardless, it just goes to show that none of us knows what is going on in the other guys head. When I'm at a restaurant or bar and I see someone who is carrying I get a bit anxious.

IT'S NOT about the gun, It's about the guy with the gun. I don't know what's in his head, if he had a bad day at the office or a fight with his wife. What I do know is that the guy sitting there has a lethal weapon and a mental disposition that is unknown.

I suppose the guy in the Washington gun range made quite an impression on the rest of the class. Maybe that was his intent, or maybe he just wanted to committ suicide without the expense of actually buying the gun. I bet the rest of the class will never forget that day!

Suggest removal:

31HappyBob(285 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago


It is plain common sense (as you would say) to not let children play/own/possess/purchase guns.

Have you taken complete loss of you senses? Children are just too unpredictable, subject to loss of impulse control, too manipulative.

A child with a gun... it takes only a fraction of a second for that child to turn his gun on his father, mother etc.

Children with guns, subject to parental supervision, is a recipe for disaster. INSANE!

Suggest removal:

32Sensible(118 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

You say that cops and servicemen would not prefer to use the slide stock. Based on accuracy I might agree, however I've also seen demos that would contradict that, at least for distances of less than 75 feet.
But that not the point. People like the aurora shooter or the new town shooter don't really care about accuracy. Seemingly their choice of weapons is based on the ability to inflict significant and RANDOM injury

We are learning that the Newtown shooter fired 150 rounds from his ar15 from the time he first shot out the doors to the school to the time that he used a handgun to kill himself was less than 5 minutes

Suggest removal:

33GailsMom(16 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

fellows you are still talking about killing people. in the end all your so called rights wont mean anything on judgement day. all your guns do is kill His children.

The Lord will deliver to you the same measure of mercy that you show to His children.

I'll pray that you have a chnge of heart before its too late. if not, the Lord will find you responsible. At that time you don't have a prayer

God doesn't care about your constitution. I dare you to argue about that.

Suggest removal:

34kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

On the topic of "children"--- For the final time. (Libs love to use snippets to take you out of context and say "crazy" or "nutty"). When in fact, I am sane and for some reason you are not comprehending. Parents make the difference. THEY decide when a "youngster" (under 18, NOT a 3 yr. old "child") is mature enough to own a gun and supervise them when they use it. If you can't understand THAT then I will have to consider you as "stupid" as you consider me "nutty". I also stated that there are those over 18 that are NOT mature enough to own guns. I would put people who continually take you out of context in that category.
Suzanne is in politics? That is a good thing. She would abide by the Constitution and not let the gubmint head in the direction that Jan Brewer is warning about.

"Limitations (or restrictions) around the second hasn't invalidated that." That makes no sense at all. That is the same as saying "Infringements on 2A do not infringe on 2A". Look up what a synonym is and then look up synonyms for "infringe". As has been pointed out previously, the current infringements are the camels nose in the tent. To go further with (most of) the infringements they want to add puts the camel in up to the hump. Obama has previously stated (as a senator) that he desires the entire camel in the tent. Several "lawmakers" have the same mindset.
"but that's not the real world we live in." Actually in those couple of paragraphs we started coming close to agreement. As stated many, many times now (although unConstitutional) the restrictions we currently have are needed due to the immaturity (liberalization) of people. "oh, they are just children, let them do what they want" (with no consequence). They never mature. Then those children become parents and we have to have laws and rules and regulations on everyone (adults) because some are too immature and lack self-control to behave properly while outside of a cage. 200, 100, even 50 years ago there was no (real) problem with (mature) youngsters owning guns. Now there is. So what is the difference? Guns are still the same. You pull a trigger and a bullet comes out. It's a people problem NOT a gun problem.

Suggest removal:

35kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

How do we fix the people problem? Hold parents more responsible for their off-springs actions (up to a certain point). After about 16 hold them responsible and they if commit an infraction their should be consequences. For a great infraction there should be GREAT consequences. Having television, commissary privileges, damn near gourmet meals and recreational equipment is NOT punishment and does NOT lead to changing behavior. Liberals want to pamper criminals and take away MY Rights?? SCREW THEM!
Liberal "lawmakers" want to take away my Rights and exclude themselves from the same laws?? SCREW THEM!
Liberalization creates these loonies and criminals, they can find another way to deal with it.
Yes, there are the few like the guy who held the school kid hostage a month or so back. That's the way most of those situations play out. The right-wing loony snaps, has few or no victims, the cops shoot them or haul them away or they shoot themselves. (No, I did not say that the child was not a victim.) We tried gun laws and other infringements. Certainly none of those worked and most especially in the worst cases.
So let's deal with the liberalization problem.
They broke it..they can fix it. Take away MY Rights and continue on the path of idiocy?? SCREW THEM!

" People like the aurora shooter or the new town shooter don't really care about accuracy. Seemingly their choice of weapons is based on the ability to inflict significant and RANDOM injury"
No they DON'T want to inflict injury. They WANT to inflict death. I believe at least one of shooters even left a note to that effect.

"We are learning that the Newtown shooter fired 150 rounds from his ar15 from the time he first shot out the doors to the school to the time that he used a handgun to kill himself was less than 5 minutes"

I'm sure there are people (with a speed loader) that could shoot 150 (or close to it) accurate shots in 5 min. An armed teacher, principal, or even an armed passerby (if it were legal to carry anywhere), could have possibly totally prevented this. He shot out the door before entering, right? That's all the heads-up that is needed for a Free armed person to draw their weapon and prepare to defend. To the un-Free and unarmed, those shots at the door only mean "we're about to die".

Suggest removal:

36kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

GailsMom- "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". So you are saying God is not the "Creator" they were talking about?
The ideas that some of the other posters and I are talking about is how to PREVENT senseless killings. We may disagree about how that should be done (I say it can be done without infringing on the Bill of Rights, others don't mind whittling away at those Rights), but NO ONE is promoting "killing". If you are arguing against self-defense (and I believe you are) that does not make you a "Christian", that makes you a pacifist. I am for your right to just stand there and be killed or to let other of "God's children" to be killed (though I consider that very wrong). You can believe whatever you think is right. But you cannot say I don't have the Right to defend myself, family or others. Even if guns were outlawed, the people with bad intent WILL still have guns. You NEED to understand that and find a way that does NOT infringe on my Rights to deal with the problem.

Suggest removal:

37GailsMom(16 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

To kk80856,
I told my Mom not to try to talk sensibly with you folks. Telling her that she is not Christian has upset her so much that she asked me to respond to you for her.
First off, she wants you to know that she will pray for you, specifically that you will see that promoting weapons is not something that God’s Son would ever advocate.

She says the “right” to bear arms is a secular construct, not a God given “right”. Just because some men claimed that God gave them a right doesn’t make it true. What is true to God’s plan is to follow the teachings of His Son. That is being a Christian. His teaching is very clear as when He instructs His disciple Peter to “put away your sword” in the garden.
By the way, “ the endowed by the Creator” reference is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. In point of fact, the Constitution never refers to God or Creator or Supreme Being.

Mom feels that guns have one principle purpose, to kill or threaten to kill. People who promote guns are promoting that purpose. People who promote killing of others, even if it just promoting the tool used for killing, are sinning against God. What is even more blasphemous is declaring that God has endowed you the “right” to promote the tools of killing His children.

On Judgment day, you and others can shake your Constitution in God’s face and claim "your rights" , it will not deter His justice.

Suggest removal:

38HappyBob(285 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

@Gail and GailsMom,
Thank you for your profound thoughts.
Happy Easter !

Suggest removal:

39kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Gailsmom's daughter Gail,
I am sorry that mom misunderstood my statements and is upset but I NEVER said she was not a Christian. That is not my call to make. I said that being against self defense does not make you a Christian, it makes you a pacifist. I'm sure a lot of atheists and other non-Christians are pacifist also. It seemed she was trying to invoke the name of God to make her point. I know many Christians who believe in self-defense and defending others who might be helpless. I understand that some Christians might not. I'm not saying they (or mom) are wrong. Just as I would not have the right to say those who aren't pacifist are wrong. Many religions and religious groups believe different things. Nice thing about the Bill of Rights.....we also have Freedom of Religion :) Good thing too because without it we might be like Iran and the gubmint might sentence you to death just for the way you believe. Do you know what Right PROTECTS the Right to Freedom of Religion? The Right to keep and bear arms. And that is EXACTLY why they added to that Right "shall not be infringed". It is there, high on the list, to guarantee the protection of ALL of the other RIGHTS. Once that Right is defeated or watered down or infringed upon, there is NOTHING to protect the others. Not one other Amendment gives you the tool or the power to protect itself, let alone all the Rights. Those men were pretty smart back in the day. They KNEW that at some point, for some reason, the gubmint would try to seize power and pass laws to try to restrict (infringe), on that Right. And once they accomplish that....the rest will fall like dominoes.
It has happened over and over and over again throughout history and goes on today (re Cuba).
If Cuban citizens were armed, they too could have Freedom of Religion. They too could speak their mind on Vindy without the fear of being thrown in prison. They too, could be Free.
BTW, I know that quote is from the Declaration of Independence but they were speaking of our Rights. All those documents were created in the same era by many of the same men. they are interrelated. They are the Founding Documents of this Country.
"Mom feels that guns have one principle purpose, to kill or threaten to kill. People who promote guns are promoting that purpose."
She is entitled to feel that way but I feel that self defense and defense of those who may be helpless would be allowed. Just as well, I believe that defending the Rights we were endowed with by our Creator would be allowed.
Again, sorry if mom misunderstood my statement or I wasn't clear enough in my meaning.

Suggest removal:

40kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Wow! You stalking that girl? :) I know she does speaking engagements but that's just because of the other videos. Just keep in mind that she is not an actress. Her parents were really killed. It really hit me hard to watch that and know that possibly her parents and maybe many other people might still be alive had her right to bear arms (at that time) was infringed upon.
I never use the word invalidate with the Bill of Rights. It cannot be invalidated. They can make laws and restrictions and infringements...even take a pair of scissors and cut it out of the original copy and the Bill of Rights will still be valid. Yes they put some restrictions in over time but we will be sure to let them know when they've gone too far. They obviously got the message and backed down some since the scary looking guns have been dropped from the senate bill coming up next month. The people have spoken.
Admittedly, there are "bad kids" and "bad parents" on both sides of the ideological spectrum. When you say "strict" I will assume less than beating the kid (not spanking but beating) which may lead to a violent nature. That does not mean that liberalism (from school to court) do not shape the kid into something a sane society cannot handle. He/she gets away with murder (figuratively) in school and assumes he can get away with murder (literally) in court. And if you look at the plea bargains just in Y-town you'll see they actually do. Don't know if anything has changed but a year or two ago I remember 2 stories of thugs committing another murder shortly after getting out of prison. Both had originally committed a murder and plead to man-slaughter pulling about a 5 yr. sentence. They got out in about 2. I could have lived with it if for the first murders they were hung or serving life. So could've their second victims. That's what liberalization does. Let em off easy...it's societies or their cultures fault...no self responsibility at all.
I think taking care of the liberalization problem will fix a lot of the immaturity problem.

Suggest removal:

41kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Correct, Freedom of Religion is a colloquial term. Perhaps you did not understand. Yes there are some restrictions but without 2A and an unarmed populace, the gubmint could decide that everyone must worship the same in whatever religion they came up with. Remember, in England, everyone had to be Catholic and the king was the head of the church. We have (basically "Freedom of Religion". We can be pretty much any religion we want and exercise that Right in many different ways. Yes, there are some restrictions....several of them are probably a contributing factor of problem kids. But anyway, 2A comes in to play when the gubmint tries to say, everyone will be Catholic or Baptist or wiccan or worship the golden cow.
As I stated 2A protects ALL the Rights.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
I like that quote. Whether Jefferson said it or not, I don't know but it kind of sums it up. NO other right can defend itself let alone all the other rights. Without it our Rights are like a house of cards in a strong wind.
hmmm, I have to disagree with your opinion (though you are entitled to it). She appears to believe that God would not want me to shoot someone that was going to kill her daughter. I don't believe God would have a problem with that. We believe differently. That's our Rights :)
But if it hadn't been for guns, we would have none of these Rights. We would still be subjects instead of Free citizens.

Suggest removal:

42kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Gailsmom's daughter Gail, BTW, you are taking Jesus' words out of context.
"Read those verses in context and they support my position. Jesus told Peter he would be committing suicide to choose a fight in this situation – as well as undermining God’s plan to allow Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection.

Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place – at his side. He didn’t say throw it away. After all, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason for the arms was obviously to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. What Jesus was saying was: “Peter, this is not the right time for a fight.”"

"Luke 11:21 ESV / 63 helpful votes
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe;"

Not telling you what or how to believe...just giving you information. There's a lot more, just google "Bible on self defense"

Suggest removal:

43Jerryl(105 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Since you mention it are you in favor of legalization of drugs also?

Your mind is warped. By your logic there should be no speed limits because speeders will ignore the speed limits anyway.

Suggest removal:

44kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

"You need a crowd" No, you need an UNARMED crowd. UNARMED crowds are easy to find.... anywhere there is a Criminal Protection Zone.
Criminal Protection Zones are easy to find. They have signs saying that law-abiding citizens may not defend themselves in that area.
You hit it exact. I'll bet I don't know one law-abiding, responsible gun owner (or even just 2A supporter) that would not line up and try to be first to sign a ban on scary looking guns if it would save the life of even just one person. But it would have to be a law based in common sense, not something that had been tried and failed to solve the problem.
To make any sense at all the background check system needs to be changed. Instead of the gubmint gathering information on law-abiding citizens and infringing on their Rights, and effectively building the basis of a national gun registry database (like hitler had), they need to make a "LIST" of criminals and violent loonies. The transaction goes like this: 1) I wanna buy this gun. 2) ffl makes call..."Is John Hancock on the list?" 3) big brother answers..."No, John Hancock is not on the list." 4) You leave store with gun.
The lefty loonies will not like this idea because that would be a list of their friends but it would be more (nearly) Constitutional AND prevent those undesirables from obtaining weapons through ffl's. Of course, they will still get them in the same way they normally get them now...steal them, buy on black market, etc.
As far as banning scary features on rifles that change nothing about the function of the gun....that's just stupid. I have not heard of any killings where the perp used just a pistol grip, a sliding stock, and/or hand-guard rails. Put them on any gun and they call it an "assault weapon". The case can then be made that adding any or all of these features to a Subway Foot-Long(c) would make it an "assault weapon" also.
cuomo finally found out that they don't make 7 round magazines so he changed the law so that you are legal with a 10-round mag but may stay legal by only putting in 7 bullets. I've been around a lot of years. I've heard a LOT of stupid things. I would be hard pressed to remember anything more STUPID than that! Here's the scenario...good guy is in gunfight for his life (and his wife and 2 kids) with bad guy that wants to kill them.... bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.....bad guy walks over to good guy (and family) and .....bang, bang, bang, bang (he had 1 in the tube). The loony lefties love this scenario because with 4 new deaths (and children too, oh boy) they can wail for more infringements on the Constitution.
Honestly people.... I can't even think of anything off hand that even biden has said that would reach THAT level of moronic, idiotic, stupidity. (I'm almost sure I'll stand corrected but it's right up there in a tie.)

Suggest removal:

45kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

add- "That's just the kind of people they are." after "...if it would save the life of even just one person."

After thinking about it, let's go one step closer to making sense and being more (nearly) Constitutional.
Instead of the ffl calling big brother, big brother publishes the identities of criminals and violent loonies so that ffl can the "LIST" on internet. Mug shots and all identifying info. Whether criminal or loony is not specified. To be (possibly) Constitutional, there would be other reasons to access that same "LIST" (for hiring school teachers, etc.) .
No law-abiding citizens were harmed in the creation of this common sense, Constitutional solution which will probably never be implemented because it's NOT about "save the kids!!", it's about (eventual) confiscation. History is attempting to repeat itself as we watch our Rights and culture being trampled on.
Kids are indoctrinated into a culture where nothing has consequences and killing is a "thrill".
This new culture and indoctrination is being brought to you by those same lefty loons who would not like laws based in common sense but push for ones that restrict your Rights and water down the Constitution.

There are some on these boards that will come on and say they own a gun or know somebody that owns a gun and they are all for 2A. Some may even say they have chl or ccw to sound even more all about 2A. Then they want to continue failed restrictions and easily agree to new (senseless) ones to further restrict legal ownership.

Suggest removal:

46Jerryl(105 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

To realitylesson.
When you wrote … if you really think passing a law will keep these guns out of criminals hands? Really worked well with drugs didn't it?
Sounded like you were trying to make the point that since laws against drug possession didn’t work that laws against criminals possessing or getting guns would not work either.

Since the drug laws have been ineffective, some people are pushing to end drug laws altogether.
And since guns laws have not halted gun crime, some people are pushing to end the guns laws, particularily the background check laws.

That’s where I thought you were coming from, saying that the background check laws don’t work

Suggest removal:

47kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

That's the beauty of it...if an area is not marked as a criminal protection zone, nobody has to be carrying. The perp don't know. In his mind, maybe everyone is carrying, or any percentage. If you look at a list of the mass shootings in the last 20 years and where they took place, you can plainly see that those who wish to rack up body counts prefer criminal protection zones by a wide margin. Yes, there were mass shootings before CPZ's but they were much fewer and much further between. Also, few people could carry concealed back then so a perp could pretty well rest assured that most areas were easy pickings. Now, in some states, even churches are being open to c.c. Of course, there are some perps who will not care because they are out for revenge (cheating spouse, fired from job, etc.), but hopefully as more people carry and hopefully less CPZ's at least these perps might be stopped after 1 or 2 victims (even less with a bit of luck) instead of 10, 20 or more. From the looks of 2012 stats in Ohio, in a crowd of 100 people you can expect 3 might be carrying (in a non-cpz) but that number is growing everyday.
As far as schools-even if the state allows, many if not most schools have/had policies against anyone carrying. That is changing.
On business owners- To the best of my knowledge, if it is posted as a cpz the owner may carry but may not authorize other employees according to the law. I have not researched that but that is the info recv'd in ccw course.
Yes, in the first post the difference is so slight that it may make no difference as the ffl is still giving the fed. gubmint all of the law-abiding citizen's info to tuck away in a database. Can I prove they keep that info which effectively creates a gun registration database (like hitler had)? No. Would it be legal? No (to the best of my knowledge). Would it be Constitutional? No. Is it possible or even likely? Knowing how well our fed. gubmint follows the law and Constitution....Yes, extremely likely. That is why, after a little more thought, I added the second post which refined the idea to let ffl's access the database of info to check at the point of sale if the purchaser is in fact a known criminal or confirmed loony. The list is in alphabetical order and no info is given to the fed. gubmint. Way closer to Constitutional and still prevents sale of guns (though ffl's) to criminals. The local ffl would still keep the info about the purchase which could be accessed by the gubmint by a court order if needed in the event a gun were used in a crime. The court order would be specific to that serial number and purchaser.

Suggest removal:

48kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

tex- exactly which/whose post are you referring to? I'm not getting the point you are trying to make.

Suggest removal:

49kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Oh, I see (I think). duh, on me. You appear to be commenting on the original article at the top of the page. I referred to your comments and found that you also have an article on here. I have to say, I am quite impressed and you give me hope. Several posters (and the original author) on this page are willing to do anything that infringes on the Rights of law-abiding citizens, yet they want a strict, biblical adherence to the sacred "rights" of criminals and evil people. These are the same ones that want light sentences for child rapists (re: as in your article) and would call hanging and firing squads "cruel and unusual punishment". They are the problem, you just might be the solution. Stick with the Constitution and good luck in all you do.

Suggest removal:

50Bigben(1996 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

What ?????????????????

"We might visualize today a gunman walking into a crowded area armed with a muzzle-loader rifle and pistol. How many shots could he get off before he was taken down?" -- This is a nonsense argument.We might visualize riding horses and outlawing alcohol to reduce drunk driving accidents. This is fear peddling without merit.

Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

"Today a .22-caliber revolver is a deadly weapon. Would this weapon satisfy the founders at that time? I believe it would, because it would be a hundred times more efficient than what was then available."

- -You would pit a 22 caliber revolver against a 45 to 75 caliber single shot ? A Kentucky long rifle shooting a 45 caliber round ball could be accurate at 200 yards. Try that with with a 22 pistol - -I don't think so - - -maybe 25 to 50 yards.And that much heavier round ball will hit much harder at all ranges mentioned.

What this boils down to is some folks would like the American people to be disarmed which the founders clearly opposed. They knew what tyranny was about and they studied their History.

Suggest removal:

51excel(595 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

A preemptive strike is where you go from door to door and confiscate the guns from would be killers. Just one bullet is deadly and can kill.

Suggest removal:

52Bigben(1996 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

"A preemptive strike is where you go from door to door and confiscate the guns from would be killers." - - - - "A preemptive strike..." - - -Your kidding right ?????? Maybe we can scan people and divine their thoughts and if there thoughts are incorrect we can lock them up. Wasn't there a book and movie about this preemptive strike idea?

Suggest removal:

53HappyBob(285 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

To Realitylesson,

What or which law are you referring to?

The background check proposals are an extension of existing law to close access at gun shows, flea markets, garage sales, etc. The big objection to this (from the NRA) is the fear that it could lead to a law requiring registration of all firearms, and that could lead to the possibility of a national confiscation program.

The current background system does accomplish it's goal to trying to prevent prohibited persons from acquiring weapons. There is lots of factual information to show that it has been effective, but obviously not effective enough.

But there are gaps in that system, not only getting other transactions covered, but also making sure the states provide data on mentally disturbed people. South Carolina (according to it's Senator) has approximately 15,000 names of adjudicated mentally disabled that have not been sent to the FBI to be included in the background check system.

You and I don't know the answer, partially because there are many things that need to be done. Some maybe more successful than others, some may have more impact than others. And yes, you are right there are many policies and actions that have to work together to achieve a common goal. So your point is well taken, there is no "silver bullet" that will "solve" a gun violence problem.

The reality is that Americans have to work together to control gun violence, and together we many have to do many things.

Just calling each other names (as I saw on TV today) doesn't solve anything.

Doing nothing will lead nowhere and we will continue to get the same result.

Suggest removal:

54kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

Well, my ccw instructor was law enforcement also...what does that tell us? It tells us you don't ask cops about the legality of any given scenario. No disrespect to cops but they are not trained on the law (other than basics or taking further education on their own). Cops see an act they believe is unlawful, make an arrest and leave it to the prosecutor. The prosecutors office would be the one to ask. I personally don't care enough one way or the other to be put on hold for an undetermined amount of time,
Since we had already agreed that we argued cpz's to death I was ONLY pointing out that when you gave the elements required for a mass shooting to happen that you were erroneous by only stating needing a "crowd" as one of those elements. I was just correcting the error that the "crowd" must be (or is preferred to be) unarmed. I stated the best place to find an unarmed crowd would be in a cpz. I was not arguing pros or cons of cpz's. I will concede that some people can probably be authorized to carry in some or even all cpz's. That does not change the fact that a marked cpz is an advertisement for easy pickings. That may change, but that is how it stands now (or at least as far back as Sandy Hook and Aurora).
As far as the ffl check, if you read my post again you will notice that I already screwed the "snarky clerk at walmart" by NOT posting the reason that people were on the disabled list. So nobody knows if they are criminal or looney. Would that not be better than delaying/inconveniencing/infringing on a law abiding citizen's Rights?

"I thought that NRA is now against background checks (regardless of where the “list” exists)."
I never, ever claimed to speak for the NRA. I believe that is at least the second time you've mentioned them to me....are you a member?

Suggest removal:

55kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

"So again, the posting of GUN FREE or NO GUNS PERMITTED, does not inform a “bad guy” that the property is defenseless."
I won't argue your point but I think the victims of Aurora/Sandy Hook would...

Suggest removal:

56kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

my bad...that was so-called "sensible" on "The slippery slope of gun control". happybob said we would never agree. I agreed with that. Then so-called "sensible" (aka happybob) agreed with that.
"I am responding to your contention that Gun Free Zones render the occupants defenseless. All I’m saying is that is not necessarily true, so it’s not a valid contention."
Although in most cases it does render the occupants defenseless (just ask Aurora/Sandy Hook/other victims), I have mentioned in past posts about the Oregon mall incident where a concealed carrier accidentally carried because he did not see the sign. That greatly assisted in ending the incident which could have been much worse. And then there was the one off-duty cop doing security at Columbine...that worked, but the question must be asked, "how well did that work?". 1 armed guard for the entire school property.
Never been a member of NRA, don't know what BFA is, may have possibly been past OFCC site several years ago when looking into c.c. I use the term cpz because it is the only accurate description. There is no such thing as a gfz unless you have a metal detector and searches at the entrances. And even then, look at the stories of people who accidentally carried guns onto planes (some caught eventually, some admitted after the fact). You CANNOT guarantee a gfz. They work great for cpz's though. That's been proven too many times.
"...only on websites like these that you find the slang term CPZ" A lot of cops call them that too. I don't know the origin.
"Regarding the NRA..."-- It appears from that paragraph that you might be a hunter or shoot for recreation. It would appear from your statements that when the NRA went from those topics to standing up for 2A...that turned you off.
Hate to break it to you but hunting and recreation have nothing to do with 2A and 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting and recreation. From your statements I can only conclude that you (maybe) care about hunting or recreational shooting but don't care at all about Constitutional Rights.
----Would that not be better than delaying/inconveniencing/infringing on a law abiding citizen's Rights?--- I was wondering where you might stand on a "LIST" like that as opposed to the current backa$$wards way of doing it.

Suggest removal:

57kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

para 1 - my mistake about who I was talking with on another article. It obviously was not you.
para 2 - "No, I didn’t think that you were a spokesman for the NRA, however the arguments that you make seem to be in consistent same discussion points made by the NRA and the BFA and the OFCC. It seems that it's only on websites like these that you find the slang term CPZ"
"Interestingly, if one searches the NRA web site for Criminal Protection Zones or CPZ there are no results."
--- Okay.
I just prefer a more accurate term rather than a "feel good" non sequitur so I use the term cpz. Whether or not the NRA uses the term or where it came from is irrelevant. I would just refer you to ask the victims of Aurora/Sandy Hook/many others if it is gfz or cpz.
para 3- maybe you don't understand what tyranny is if you think you can fight it "at the ballot box". If it ever went that far, air superiority would mean nothing in a guerrilla war. I do get kind of tired of the silly strawman argument about the military attacking civilians. The military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. If the people are fighting to protect their Constitutional Rights the (majority of) military will justly disobey the unlawful order to attack civilians.
Technically, there IS a Constitutional Right to keep and bear fighter aircraft or attack choppers. Affording them is another matter. That is why the Constitution says "arms" and not "guns". The Founding Fathers would want the people to have access to anything the gubmint would have. But as previously stated, those types of weapons would be pretty useless in a war on the people of this Country.
You say you care about the Second Amendment but all your arguments only infringe on law-abiding citizens Rights and really do nothing to prevent another Aurora/Sandy Hook. And certainly did not and will not prevent another CA (ex-cop in L.A.).
para 4 -- There could be 100 million names on the list....does not matter. It is not printed out and mailed...it is available on the internet (with restricted access of course). Not cumbersome, not expensive and would be policed at the local or state level.
So the question I need answered (assuming all details and technicalities can be worked out) is:
Would that not be better than delaying/inconveniencing/infringing on a law abiding citizen's Rights??--- I was wondering where you might stand on a "LIST" like that as opposed to the current backa$$wards way of doing it. And yes, most ffl's are cops or friends of cops and WOULD call authorities if a fugitive or loony were attempting to purchase a gun.

Suggest removal:

58kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

para 5 -- (next post)- yes you do try to get (some) of the facts. You point out that there is a revision to the code in Ohio that allows administrators and/or teachers to carry on school property. That does not change the fact that most schools (at least until now) had/have policies prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons even by administrators/teachers. You point out the fact that there is a revision to the code in Ohio that allows business owners to carry or appoint someone to carry. That does not change the fact that if cinemark owns any theaters in Ohio they are probably just as unprotected as the theater in Aurora. On the story you referred me to (which I may respond on), you point out the fact that a few of the many criminals, etc. in CO are stopped by background checks. That does not change the fact that the many will get them by stealing/black market/etc. nor does it change the fact that some of the few who fail will get them by stealing/black market/etc. So there are facts and then there is fact based in reality. I really try to deal with facts based in reality.

Suggest removal:

59kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

1) cute. I rhetorically referred you to ask the victims if there were guns in the "supposed gun free zone" or not....or if the shooter was pretty well protected (by his guns and no one else having them) at least until the police arrived. Are YOU saying there were NO guns in the gfz school that day?
Are YOU saying that the shooter did not have the upper hand at protecting himself when the teachers tried to rush him?
2) If you want to get silly and always go down to the nuclear option, okay. Any person who has not had the extensive training and expertise in handling nuclear material is a danger to themselves and others. So no, we're not going to discuss nuclear devices and the suggestion will be ignored in the future.
3) Actually, you misunderstood or took me out of context. I'm not talking about "how it is"..I'm talking about "how it should be". I just want the answer to the question so that I will know if you are about protecting children or trampling the Constitution. So without all the dancing around and finding little problems (which can be worked around) I will ask a third time -- Would that not be better than delaying/inconveniencing/infringing on a law abiding citizen's Rights??--- I was wondering where you might stand on a "LIST" like that as opposed to the current backa$$wards way of doing it.
4) Haven't researched but using real life experience, 100% of the gun shops I have been in (that's bout a handful of times) are owned by cops or the owners/workers are good friends with cops. I have never been in a gun shop but that a cop (off duty) was not working the counter, buying something, just arriving or just leaving. When they are there I hear the conversations and you can tell they also know each other outside of the shop. The point is that most ffl type people are pro-police, pro-2A, pro-self-defense. The signs in some of their stores are VERY anti-criminal. I also did state that enforcement for those very few who might be shady for money would come at the local or state level, not the fed gubmint. Admittedly, this is a detail that would need worked out but where there is a will, there is a way. The important thing is to answer the question with a straight yes or no --- Would that not be better than delaying/inconveniencing/infringing on a law abiding citizen's Rights??--- I was wondering where you might stand on a "LIST" like that as opposed to the current backa$$wards way of doing it.
5) I know that and you were the one who posted the info you got from the Ohio AG and the 2 prosecutors. You like to mention Ohio Revised Code. I probably exceeded my license to be a bit sarcastic by a little bit but you knew what I meant and had no real argument so you dove for the little technicality.

Suggest removal:

60kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 4 months ago

6) The only REAL convenient way (outside of stealing) is to head to the black-market, same as it always was, is and will be. The "gun show loophole" is a ruse. Ever been to a gun show? There are many ffl's there (several of those are cops). Sales they make go through nics. Then there are the private sellers. Show after show they arrive with their SAME assortment of pistols, rifles and shotguns. Some are collectors items (expensive) and some are antique (expensive) and some are just old. People walk by, look at the wares and continue on to the nearest ffl. Are there a few weapons that get to a bad guy either by purchasing or using a straw purchaser from a private seller? Possible to probable but do we punish the many for the deeds of a few? Especially when it will make no difference in the end?
7) I wasn't going to answer this until you answered my question with a simple straight-forward answer but I'll see if you bargain in good faith.
First, I have nothing against a list of criminals and loonies who may not have firearms. I don't believe for a second that the Founding Fathers would have a bit of problem with a list of criminals and loonies. I believe that is somewhere in the bill but the way they go about the background checks is backwards. The criminals (who overwhelmingly) do not go to ffl's, never get checked. So the list turns into a defacto fed registration of firearms. Do I KNOW that they currently do that? No. Will it become that way? History says yes, over and over again.
Secondly, other than adding more loonies to the list I have heard nothing that changes anything...just more infringements.
Thirdly, I know prior statements by some of the high and mighty hypocritical elites and I wouldn't trust anything they have a hand in.
It is very hard for me at least, to set aside 2A on a discussion of more infringements (when do they stop?). I am not "into" guns. I don't hunt. I don't shoot for recreation. The few times I do shoot are for proficiency only. If the gubmint could keep ALL the criminals and loonies off the street and if I thought gubmint would always work in the peoples best interest and not their own....other than 2A, I personally have nothing against total gun confiscation.
As I have stated many times now, I don't have much against the way things are, but now they want more. And when that doesn't work, they will want more and more and more until we all have only airsoft guns that look like baseballs (no toys with scary looking features)...then they will say "shutup". And you'll have to because once 2A is gone all the others are gone. History shows it happens all the time and that is a fact based in reality.

Suggest removal:

61kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

1) You thought I really wanted you to drive to CT or CO and call deceased victims or harass family members with your phone call to ask a question that has an OBVIOUS answer? Okay...
I still wonder though....Are YOU saying there were NO guns in the gfz school that day?
Are YOU saying that the shooter did not have the upper hand at protecting himself when the teachers tried to rush him?

2) Maybe not "always" but if I recall that was at least the second time you went nuclear. As I said, I am not even going to discuss that, at least not until it would be a real possibility that my neighbor might be building a nuke in his basement.

3) "The problem is that I neither think it's practical nor is it lawful." Why would it be impractical and unlawful?
That is purely your opinion that the b.c. is not delaying, inconveniencing and infringing. I am living proof that in real life it is delaying, inconveniencing and therefore infringing. I've been delayed the last two times I attempted to purchase. That is why I would suggest a list of prohibited purchasers rather than a system that punishes law-abiding people for having served in the military or having a common name, etc. The first dealer suggested I get an EID# but screw that.... more hoops.

4) Obviously the ffl did not tip off the bad guy , did he?

5) The technicality was that I mentioned the "owner" of the property and in the law it is already assumed that an owner can carry and you continued to dance around the question or argument instead of addressing the question or argument.

6) yeah, I had already gone to that link and I'll let you read those hundreds if not thousands of pages and get back to me on the 10 or 20 details.
Other than that I had pretty well answered as best I could. At this point it is a lot about a bunch of hand-wringing, knee-jerking people who love exploiting tragedies for personal ideological purposes. But if you want to post the bullet points I will respond to those if you answer my question without applying your "opinion" of whether it could be practical or lawful.
Would that not be better than delaying/inconveniencing/infringing on a law abiding citizen's Rights??--- I was wondering where you might stand on a "LIST" like that as opposed to the current backa$$wards way of doing it.

Suggest removal:

62kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

post #86 If that is the same as EID#, then I already know about that, but that is still not anything like what I proposed. I put the onus on the criminal and those who can't have weapons for violent tendencies and take away defacto gun registration of law-abiding citizens.
Not to be too picky, but that's way closer to 6-7% than it is to 20%

Suggest removal:

63kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

my bad, it's only 44 (long) pages...I'll still pass for now. Maybe when I have some time but until then I will discuss specific points.

Suggest removal:

64kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

yeah, upin...that might have been it.
I still wonder though....Are YOU saying there were NO guns in the gfz school that day?
Are YOU saying that the shooter did not have the upper hand at protecting himself when the teachers tried to rush him?

And as far as putting the onus only on criminals and violent loonies... Would that not be better than delaying/inconveniencing/infringing on a law abiding citizen's Rights??--- I was wondering where you might stand on a "LIST" like that as opposed to the current backa$$wards way of doing it.

Suggest removal:

65kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

1) upin can also be used by people like me to avoid the unnecessary, infringing delay. In my case there is nothing to appeal. After the first delay, for whatever reason, it should have been straightened out on their end. I always give ssn.
2) right, but you insist that it is a gfz and Sandy Hook was a gfz. I call it a cpz and that is exactly what it was until the cops showed 26 bodies later (not blaming them).

You bring up the CT state law. I agree that is fact. But you forget about fact based in reality. The reality is that most schools (at least until now) had/have a policy of "no guns" even by those teachers, etc. who have permits. That is changing but the perp KNEW it was unlikely he would meet with opposition. And the second he KNEW that opposition was present (the cops arrived), he killed himself.
Same thing with the CO law. I take your word that the law is fact. But then there is that facts based in reality problem again. The state allows, but cinemark(c) which owns the century theater totally bans guns. The perp passed several theaters that had guards and/or no cpz posted to go to the century. He did not have anything close to a bullet-proof vest on if that's what you are implying. He was wearing a tactical vest. The ceo of tacticalgear.com admitted it was purchased through his site. This is what he had. http://tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urb...
Maybe all these shootings in cpz's are coincidence? But I truly doubt it since these guys have the objective of racking up body counts. So they go to places that not only have cpz posted but also have policy against anyone carrying or very unlikely that anyone would be carrying.

Suggest removal:

66kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

Any random list can be made alphabetical in a matter of seconds (on a computer) and updating would be real time, not daily/weekly.
I am against the "defacto" gun registration of calling in and giving all the personal info of law-abiding citizens when all that is needed is a list of those who are prohibited from owning a firearm. I have already said that local or state could monitor ffl's for compliance so you don't have to worry that Expert Outfitters(c) is selling guns to bad guys on the sly.
I also mentioned that the reason people are on the list is not given so you don't have to worry about someone being outed as only a loony as opposed to a criminal.
The biggest thing I have against new laws is that when they don't work then the lefty loons will want more, more, more until they get the confiscation they truly want. It's the lefty loonies fault that these criminals and loonies are on the street to start with so they can deal with THAT. It is backwards.
If you want to protect children without stomping on the Constitution then lock up the criminals for long terms instead of 2-5 for murder and put the violent loonies in a nuthouse and keep them there.
As I've said before...if what is proposed (as far as background checks) would save 1 kid I'd have nothing against it. But it won't. They will still get the guns (or other lethal devices) to do their deeds. Get them off the street or arm enough good citizens to blow them away when they start their rampage. That is the only answer that will save lives and that was proven at the Oregon mall.

Suggest removal:

67kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

I do see conflicting reports. I'm sure it will come out in court. He obviously knew the police would be coming. My main point was that he most likely knew cinemark's policy of being certain that only bad guys may have weapons (they don't keep it a secret).

Suggest removal:

68Billyc1943(21 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

Bad guys are the armed security that cinemark hires?

Maybe the Cinemark policy is that gun possession in their theater should be controlled to those that they know and they feel are reliable.

You seem to advocate that anyone who wants should be permitted to carry a firearm into Cinemark theaters.

Suggest removal:

69kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

billy- never said that which you imply I said. There was armed security at the century theater that night? I totally missed that...so did everyone at the theater.
I guess cinemark does provide armed security at some of its theaters but did not in Aurora, CO.
Not "anyone", but I would advocate for permitted concealed carriers.

Suggest removal:

70Billyc1943(21 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

This is what you said “he most likely knew cinemark's policy of being certain that only bad guys may have weapons”.

The Aurora Cinemark policy is that the only guns allowed in the theater are Cinemark's armed security and LEOs

You say that Cinemark wants to be certain that only bad guys have guns, Cinemark wants their armed security to have guns, ergo you have equated armed security and LEOs with "bad guys".

How Stupid!

Suggest removal:

71kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

Yes billy, you are so smart. that is exactly what I meant.

Suggest removal:

72Billyc1943(21 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

If you think that Cinemark's armed security and law enforcement officers are the "bad guys"', who are the "good guys"?

How about closet vigilantes like Zimmerman?

Or the open carry advocates?

Suggest removal:

73kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago


Look up.....over your head ^. It's a bird....it's a plane...no, it's sarcasm. http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...

This article is not about Zimmerman but since you asked...From the scant amount of evidence released so far it would appear that Zimmerman acted purely in self-defense. I am reserving final judgement until all the evidence is given. But feel free to jump to any ideological conclusions you wish. You do realize if Zimmerman were black this would be a non-story, right?

Although I personally would prefer to surprise the bad guy, I have nothing against open carry. A holster is one of the safest places in the world for a handgun

Suggest removal:

74Billyc1943(21 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

This thread was originally about how limited gun restrictions don't violate the 2nd amendment. KK80856, you keep trying to talk about CPZs and repeat that CPZs keep out the "good guys with guns". Specifically contending that Cinemark's policy is that only "bad guys" can have weapons (in their theaters).

As to Zimmerman, listen to the 911 call he made before he chased after Martin down:

911: "Are you following him."
Zimmerman: "Yes."

911: "meet the officers at the mailboxes"
Zimmerman: Ok, have the officers call me and I'll tell them where (to meet).

Seconds later,

Zimmerman: "he is running"


It is plain that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Had Zimmerman not pursued, had he done what the 911 dispatcher told him to do, had he waited for LEO to meet him at the mailboxes, the face-to-face altercation would never have occurred. Zimmerman himself forced the situation.

Suggest removal:

75kk80586(227 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

I had already said that cinemark does have armed guards in some of their theaters...then I asked you if there was an armed guard in the Aurora theater that night. Cops can go almost anywhere and most cpz's can authorize an armed guard but many do not. So I ask again, was there an armed guard at the Aurora theater that night or did the theater make sure that no law-abiding citizen would have protection from a nutcase?

911: "Are you following him."
Zimmerman: "Yes."
Zimmerman: "OKAY"
....some more conversation...
Zimmerman: "HE RAN"
.....some more conversation....
911: "what's your apartment number?"
Zimmerman: "It's a home it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, ----> I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE KID IS. <-------"

And it continues that Zim tells them to meet at his truck near the mailboxes. Zim was at or near his truck when Trayvon(tm) apparently came back to "get him some". If Trayvon(tm) was running and had gotten away, why did he come back to Zim? So it is NOT plain that Zimmerman was continuing to pursue Trayvon(tm). It appears that Zim was doing as the dispatcher asked. You do realize that Trayvon(tm) was no longer the sweet little 12 y.o. the media likes to post pictures of, right?

Like I said, I am reserving final judgement until all the evidence is given. But feel free to jump to any ideological conclusions you wish.

Also, you do realize that link you gave is a highly edited version, right? The actual call was around 4 minutes.

Suggest removal:

76Billyc1943(21 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

So do you have a link to the "actual" call? Or an official transcript ?
(You don't expect me to accept on faith alone?)

On Cinemark, supposedly that Aurora theater regularly has armed guards on weekends and on management request. I would not disagree that they should have had armed guards there on that early Friday morning. Very likely they will pay dearly for that oversight - as they should.
However that is certainly not even close to saying that they have a policy that only "bad guys" can have guns in their theater.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2015 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