Norcross.Talk

By Justin

February 5, 2007 04:59 AM | Link to this

I disagree with your argument. I believe it is the criminal element that gives guns a bad name, because an overwhelming percentage of guns are not used in crimes. Imagine if no crimes were committed with guns. No nightly news stories or front page headlines. Yes, suicides and accidental deaths and injuries would still occur, but people find ways to kill themselves without guns, and the number of unintentional deaths and injuries with guns is incredibly small when compared to other causes of death and injury. It’s still awful that people are accidentally injured or killed with guns, but it sounds like you’re striving for perfection in the form of no accidental gun deaths or injuries. If you are that concerned about deaths and injuries, there are other causes that would be, proportionally speaking, more beneficial to address: motor vehicles, poisoning, drowning, fires, suffocation, numerous diseases, etc. But if guns are your issue, then suicide prevention and the criminals who use guns in crimes are really where your focus should be.

I would probably support any steps to reduce gun ownership/possession by criminals. I agree that the general public has no need to possess semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles as well as armor piercing bullets. All loopholes that exist in which legal transactions take place without proper background checks should be closed. All gun owners should have to go through some sort of training before obtaining a general license which could then be used to purchase a gun. This training should stress the importance of safety, especially when children are in a home with a gun.

By Edward

February 5, 2007 06:38 AM | Link to this

Face it this is Atlanta and the city is wrought with crime and thugs, a gun to protect yourself is a must here, all the thug criminals have them, so why shouldn’t law abiding citizens have legal guns. Look at the news, how many faces of young black males killing and and robbing innocent people does it take before you buy a gun to protect your family. The news just reported that a group of so called civil rights activist are going to protest at the sentencing of the two brothers who pled guilty to nine felony charges, one felony being cooking the puppy alive. They want to make sure the brothers receive no jail time. This is the mentality we are up against, they think its okay to do nine felonies and not go to jail just because they are black. This is insane, first off, who do they think they are trying to intimidate the judicial system. Second, is this the best you could come up with to save, these two criminal idiot thugs?

By Dennis

February 5, 2007 08:03 AM | Link to this

When policemen, Sheriff Dupties, private detectives, security guards and the body guards of celebrities, acknowledge that they do not need their guns and willingly give up their guns: then, I might be convinced that it is safe for me to give up my guns.

By Matt

February 5, 2007 08:06 AM | Link to this

Hey look, another Democrat writing for the AJC. Shocker!

By T Jordan

February 5, 2007 08:06 AM | Link to this

Take guns away from the general public and the only people left with guns will be the law and criminals. Forget the right to bear arms. Oh yea that was in the Constitution.

By James Mullen

February 5, 2007 08:18 AM | Link to this

What this article does not mention are the positive and legal uses of guns. According to academics such as Professor Gary Kleck at Florida State University, firearms are lawfully used 4-5 times more often by citizens to stop the commission of a crime than criminals misuse guns to commit a crime. Regarding accidents, the CDC ranks firearms among the lowest causes of accidental deaths. Children are far more at risk from many other things, so let’s ban them too. The number one cause of accidental deaths for both adults and children are cars: 44,000+ are killed each year. The reason accidental deaths by firearms are reported on so much is because they are very rare.

If banning guns is the way to reduce crime, then the author needs to explain why England, which banned handguns and has severe restrictions on rifles and shotguns, ranks as the most violent western industrialized nation according to the International Crime Victim Survey. Why does a nation that bans guns have a gun crime problem? See link to article below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/08/ngun08.xml

The 2nd amendment is no more responsible for violence than the 1st amendment is responsible for child pornography. Criminals don’t need rights and freedom to commit crimes, but we need rights and freedom to defend ourselves from criminals. The reasons given in this article for banning guns are based on nothing more than firearm-phobic ignorance.

By Brian Curtis

February 5, 2007 08:32 AM | Link to this

When murder is outlawed, only outlaws will be murdering. See how silly the NRA-style arguments are?

The fact is, most gun deaths aren’t caused by some shadowy “criminal class.” They’re caused by stupidity, accidents, and outbursts of rage from perfectly normal, everyday people like you and me.

We have a Constitutional requirement for a well regulated militia, and gun registration and control have been upheld in the courts time and again.

The tired old “defending ourselves against tyranny” argument doesn’t work, either. You have a handgun? They have tanks. Guess who wins?

“I believe everyone should have the right to own a gun. However, only I should have bullets. Because I wouldn’t trust the rest of you idiots with anything more dangerous than string.” —Dilbert—

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 08:32 AM | Link to this

Matt: Not a Democrat at all. Im an independent.

T Jordan: Go back and read what I wrote… I said no one ‘needs’ a gun.. not good people.. not bad people.

James Mullen: Not sure I can accept FSU as a reliable source.. but I will check out what he had to say anyway.

By Doug

February 5, 2007 08:36 AM | Link to this

In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. Generally, the Due Process Clause does not provide an affirmative right to government aid, “even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.

If you don’t have the means to protect yourself from the criminals, then who will? Don’t take my guns!

By James Mullen

February 5, 2007 08:57 AM | Link to this

Woody Bass: The publication, if my memory serves me correctly, is titled “Targeting Guns”. Gary Kleck is a professor of criminology at FSU.

By James Mullen

February 5, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis: FYI, firearms licensing and registration can only be enforced against lawful citizens. Criminals are exempt from these regulations and can never be charged with violating them on 5th amendment grounds per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Haynes vs. U.S. (390 U.S., 85, 1968). What do you call a government that recognizes Constitutional rights for criminals, but can not grasp the definition of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Accidents are not murder, though they can be classified as manslaughter. The FBI Uniform Crime Report states that most violent crimes, including murder, are committed by violent repeat offenderes.

By KA

February 5, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

Woody, your question should be, “Are guns too accessible to irresponsible people?” The answer to that question is YES. And irresponsible includes the criminal element. Education is the key element, and most people who own guns are responsible and handle their guns properly. Motor vehicles in the hands of irresponsible peeople are weapons, too. Would you take all of the cars away just because a small percentage of the population are irresponsible drivers?

By KA

February 5, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this

Woody, I think your problem is that you depend too much on the media for your perception of reality. When you read, watch and listen to “NEWS” that focuses primarily on murder, mayhem, mischief, misery and miscreants, then you think that those events and people are predominate and define our lives. They don’t. Our lives are full of moral, responsible, lawful, and educated people who do the right thing for themselves and their families. But our stories don’t qualify as NEWS. You need a reality check. Take a break from the media for a week and you may find that your agitation will abate. Have a serene week!

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

KA: Would you take all of the cars away just because a small percentage of the population are irresponsible drivers?

Come back next week as I already planned to answer that very question

To your point on the media, I know fully well that its focused alot on sensationalism. However, you have to acknowledge the frequency of certain types of reports.

By KA

February 5, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Woody, The ‘frequency’ of the sensational reporting is determined by the media reporting it. Can you report to us the actual percentage of the gun owning population that has tragic accidents or murders family or freinds? Most reports of shootings in the media are the result of criminal actions or the negligence of irresponsible gun owners who don’t secure their guns.

By Colonel Kilgore

February 5, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

If the smell of gunpowder isn’t something you love, then, Woody old sport, your masculinity is in question. And, given that geeky photo of you, no surprise that you are a fat, geeky girly-man.

By James Mullen

February 5, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Woody: Murder is one of the least committed offenses, yet it is one of the most reported offenses by the media. Like accidents, it gives a wrong impression. The murder rate per capita 100,000 is 5.6, and this rate includes non-negligent manslaughter too The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows this. America has a higher homicide rate with firearms compared to other western industrialized nations, but our rates of homicides committed without a firearm are higher than other western industrialized nations too.

FBI UCR 2006 Violent Crime Rates:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

By KA

February 5, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Woody, It’s funny that you advocate less government control of liquor sales, but then you want more government control of firearms. So you think that most people are responsible drinkers, but most people are not responsible gun owners?

By Christopher

February 5, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

If guns have too much power for one person to hold and should be banned,then cars should be too. One old geezer in a car can devastate 10 or more; it’s happened. And so should airliners - hundreds die when one pilot screws up. Railroads, refineries, chemical plants - all should go to. If you apply Woody’s logic fairly, you’ll be living in a cave hoping the roof doesn’t fall it.

Woody - life’s dangerous. Get over it.

By Brian Curtis

February 5, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Col. Kilgore: You’re all class, and you really represent the gun-fondler mentality excellently.

Psychos like this shouldn’t be allowed to drive, drink, OR own guns.

By Matt

February 5, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Woody - as much as I would love to argue this with you, it’s pretty much impossible and too tedious to do this over a post by post basis.

You can read this though: http://www.mattandthat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20843

Living in a fantasy world doesn’t make all of the guns go away. There will always be bad guys. Good guys need to defend themselves against them.

I think Christopher said it best: Woody - life’s dangerous. Get over it.

hahaha!

By Brian Curtis

February 5, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately, a lot of the damage is done by those “good guys.” And not in self-defense against “bad guys,” either.

The more I think about it, the more I really appreciate Col. Kilgore. He also revealed the hidden insecurity of the gun-fondler: “You can’t take my boom-stick away! Without it, I’m not a REAL MAN!”

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Christopher: I could, and may someday, make the argument that some people shouldnt be driving either. But thats another blog for another day.

Keep the questions coming… Ill do my best to address all your counter-arguments next week.

By vinnie

February 5, 2007 01:09 PM | Link to this

Sorry I NEED my guns. Feral dogs, injured livestock that needs put down. Feral people in the city. Availability IS the problem. When you could order weapons through the mail, no questions asked, the crime rate was MUCH LOWER.

By Seamus

February 5, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this

I call for a ban on poker, watching cartoons and political talk shows, making Woody’s house a home, cooking especially hot-‘n’-spicy cuisine. No one needs to play poker, or watch caroons or political talk shows. Spicy food lead to heartburn, can’t have that.

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 01:53 PM | Link to this

Seamus: Very clever. However, Im not officially calling for a ban.. but I wouldnt cry over spilled milk if it happened. Last I heard, no one was getting killed by playing poker or watching cartoons.

However, some have claimed I was trying to kill them with my chili. There was only 5 habaneros and 12 jalapenos in the batch! Thats nothing.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this

“There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.”

[Please note that Woody would have preferred that this child not have access to a gun, with all the consequential harm that would have fallen on him and his family. That is sooo cold of Woody.]

A 57-year-old man who was shot and killed by his 14-year-old hostage Monday at a home on Ocean Drive had been released from jail Friday and had committed several other burglaries, including a similar home invasion, according to police and court records.

Capt. John Houston said the man, who police identified through fingerprinting Tuesday as James Slaughter, had been involved in criminal activities since 1967 and was in and out of the prison system on several occasions.”His (method of operation) was to break into homes. If someone was there, he’d tie them up,” Houston said.

Police said they received a call from Rose Ann Kozlowski from her home in the 4200 block of Ocean Drive at 12:55 p.m. Monday reporting that a man had bound her and her son Michael and held them at knifepoint.

Houston said Rose Ann Kozlowski made the call after she freed herself and before Slaughter was shot but investigators were still trying to piece together a detailed timeline of the events late Tuesday.

An attorney for the Kozlowski family said he is certain Michael, a ninth-grade student at Incarnate Word Academy, acted purely out of self-defense.”The truth is it was absolutely justified,” said attorney Jimmy Granberry.”They’d all like to get back to the life they had, but they probably won’t be able to.”

According to police reports, Rose Ann Kozlowski had picked up Michael from school after he became ill and the two returned home. She then took a short trip to the grocery store and, upon her return home, was confronted by Slaughter, who threatened to kill her. He had a folding knife with a 4- to 5-inch locking blade.

Slaughter led the two to the upstairs master bedroom, where he bound their arms with men’s neckties from the closet and ransacked the house for jewelry and other valuables, putting those items in the family’s SUV.

She freed herself once, but Slaughter bound her arms again with more ties.

After freeing herself a second time and untying her teenage son, she took her husband’s six-shot revolver from a security box under the bed, handed it to her son and locked the double doors to the bedroom.

Houston said that Slaughter heard the two moving around and tried to force his way back into the bedroom.”He would slip the knife through the door and push it open a few inches to a foot,” Houston said.

Michael aimed the pistol at the space between the partially open doors and fired one shot as Slaughter was trying to force his way in.

When officers arrived, they found Slaughter with a gunshot wound to the face.

Slaughter, who lived in several Texas cities, was sentenced to 45 years in prison in 1984 for a break-in at a home in Taft the previous year. He tied up the couple and then fled the scene in their vehicle, which he packed with clothing and valuables.

San Patricio Sheriff Leroy Moody said Slaughter led deputies on a brief chase that ended when they rammed the stolen vehicle.

Despite his feeling Slaughter never should have been paroled, Moody said ultimately the system was not to blame.”He chose the lifestyle he lived. It’s all about choices,” Moody said.

Local residents at the nearby H-E-B on Alameda Street and Robert Drive commended the teenager for his actions.”I would have done the same thing. I’m glad (Slaughter) won’t be able to do it again,” said Tanya Brandon, the mother of a 6-year-old girl.”He was protecting his family.”

Yvette Contreras, who lives on Grossman Drive, said the recent burglary has made her reconsider keeping a gun in her home.”They probably would have been killed if he hadn’t shot him,” Contreras said.”Nowadays, it seems like it’s happening everywhere.”

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

“There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.”

[Please note that Woody would have preferred that this child not have access to a gun, with all the consequential harm that would have fallen on him and his family. That is sooo cold of Woody.]

An accused group of thugs were thwarted by a 12-year old with a gun. It happened in Greenville when police say five masked men stormed into a house and started beating up the child’s father.

FOX Carolina’s Jamie Guirola reports, Try and picture it. A 12 year old walks into the living room, sees his mother frantically protecting the baby, and several strangers attacking his father. The 12 year old rushes out of the living room, but comes back pointing a gun at the five suspects. As of Monday night, all but one are in jail.

These are the alleged home invaders without their masks. The youngest barely seventeen, the oldest just 20. George Dickert didn’t have time to think about their ages when he tells us they broke into his home and tried to rob his family.

George Dickert/Victim:”F*$# you! That’s what I was thinking.”

Sunday night, George says, one of the suspects in the group followed him into his house after he smoked a cigarette. He tells us the man pulled out a gun, threatening him. When George reached for a different gun in self-defense, a fight broke out.

George:”I work five days a week and my wife works six days a week. We’re an honest couple. We do what we have to do to make a living and some idiot decided he wanted what I had.”

When the struggle started, police say, two other men came into the house and started beating on George. That’s when George’s 12 year old son made the move credited with scaring the accused thugs out of the house, and stopping the burglary without even firing the gun.’

George:”He did what he had to do to protect his family last night. And a 12 year old child should never have to go through that. Even if he does know what to do, he should not have to do that.”

Police later found these four near George’s home sweating and breathing heavily. Something George hopes they’ll do again if they’re convicted and sentenced to the max.

George:”…And I will press and push and do whatever it takes to make sure every individual in it gets it.”

Police aren’t releasing details about the fifth person they’re looking for. George says he has five guns in the house. His taught his son how to use each of them. jamie.guirola@foxcarolina.com

http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=5134073&nav=menu149_1

By Brian Curtis

February 5, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

Woody, you’ve done a good job riling up the gun nuts.

Can accusations of fascism and Nazi references be far behind when you even question the sanctity of their beloved boom-sticks?

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

“There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.”

[Please note that Woody would have preferred that this child not have access to a gun, with all the consequential harm that would have fallen on him and his family. That is sooo cold of Woody.]

Maxine Chandler thought she would faint in the wee hours of Saturday when she heard a knock at her door and opened it, only to have a man lunge toward her.

She slammed the door shut and watched the 6-foot-tall man banging a bicycle against the front of her house — repeatedly hitting the window and the door.

Chandler’s screaming and crying roused her 15-year-old son, Javaris Granger, who came to see what was wrong.

Javaris went to his mother’s bedroom and loaded the two handguns his father keeps for protection in the home in the 700 block of South 61st Avenue. The family also called 911.

The man — later identified by police as Keil Jumper — kicked the door off its hinges and barged into the home about 3:30 a.m. Jumper, 22, lives on the Seminoles’ reservation near Hollywood.

Javaris, who is 5-foot-6 and weighs about 125 pounds, took cover behind a wall, armed with a gun in each hand. One of the guns was a .38 caliber, but family members said Tuesday night they were unsure about the other gun.”He was going crazy,” Javaris said.“I shot one time to let him know he had to leave. The dude didn’t leave. He was looking at my eyes, trying to get closer.”

The gun in Javaris’ right hand jammed, and he fired with the gun in his left, sending Jumper running from the single-story home. Javaris thought his shots missed the man, simply scaring him off.”I was real scared…. When I was shooting, my main focus was protecting my mom and family,” Javaris said.

Police found Jumper lying on the ground a few houses away, shot multiple times and bleeding from his wounds, said Hollywood police Capt. Tony Rode.”Preliminary investigation suggests it was a justifiable shooting, and the 15-year-old won’t be charged,” Rode said.

Police said the family did not know Jumper. Records show Jumper has served time in prison for cocaine possession, criminal mischief and throwing a deadly projectile into a home.

On Friday, the day before he allegedly broke into the Chandler home, Jumper was arrested by Seminole police for assault on an officer and resisting an officer.

Javaris protected the 11 other family members in the house — including four children under age two, Chandler said.”We didn’t want to hurt anyone, but we had to do what we had to do,” Chandler said.“When he got in here he had to shoot him.”

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14651308.htm

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

“There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.”

[Please note that Woody would have preferred that this mother not have access to a gun, with all the consequential harm that would have fallen on her and her family. That is sooo cold of Woody.]

EUREKA SPRINGS, N.C.— A pregnant mother shot and killed a suspected intruder in her home Tuesday afternoon, authorities said.

Crystal Strickland, 23, who has two young children, was lying on her couch in Cumberland County when she heard a noise and saw a man looking through her window, authorities said. When he began trying to force his way in, she told him she had a gun, and he told her that he also was armed, authorities said.

When the man broke into the home, he and Strickland exchanged gunfire, authorities said. The man later died from his wound, authorities said.

The man’s identity hasn’t been released.

Strickland was uninjured.

The incident remains under investigation, but authorities said Strickland’s gun was legally registered.

http://www.nbc17.com/news/8001286/detail.html

By tiger

February 5, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:44 PM | Link to this

“There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.”

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Here you’ll find story after story after story about ordinary homeowners just like you and I protecting their lives, their homes, and their families against predators. Any failure to imagine why someone would want to have a gun in the home is a mark against the Woody, not against the homeowners.

On the very low end of guesstimations, approximately 90 million homes have guns in them. Do ten percent, or 9 million, of these homes have children die in them from gunshots each year? No

Do one percent, or 900,000, of these homes have children die in them from gunshots each year? No

Do 1/100th of one percent, or 9,000, of these homes have children die in them from gunshots each year? No

Do 1/1000th of one percent, or 900, of these homes have children die in them from gunshots each year? No

While every child’s death is a individual tragedy, I fail to see a overwhelmingly large societal problem with gunowners.

Swimming pool owners accidently kill more kids each year than gun owners do.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:52 PM | Link to this

“I am not going to hide how much guns disgust me. I think they are one of the, if not THE, most vile contraptions on earth. “

Here’s the face of anti-gun mentality and reasoning. A person who:

1) knows nothing about guns… 2) doesn’t own a gun… 3) can’t conceive of a reason to own a gun…

and yet constantly speaks about guns and gun owners as if he is an expert with years behind the trigger.

He states with authority that:

1) The general public has no reason to own firearms (yet he self-admittedly knows nothing about guns and gun owners.) 2) Guns provide more power than any one individual was meant to have. (yet he self-admittedly knows nothing about guns and gun owners.) 3) There’s a number of completely irresponsible people who go out and purchase a gun knowing absolutely nothing about them (yet he self-admittedly knows nothing about guns and gun owners.) 4) Guns some false sense of security (yet he self-admittedly knows nothing about guns and gun owners.)

Folk… who here would listen to a person who has never driven a car, doesn’t own a car, has never ridden in a car, has never taken a course in car mechanics, and self-professedly believes that all cars are evil but yet constantly expounds about cars.

Would you bother to ask this person to solve your engine problems? Or even how to solve the problem of too many car accidents? Drunk drivers?

Of course not. He would be marginalized in any adult conversation about cars and at best, would be tolerated as comic relief as she makes car noises with his lips to show how internal combustion engines must work (in his view). BRRRR BRRRR BRRRR.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

“The general public has no reason to own firearms such as semi-automatic guns or assault rifles “

“Assault rifles” are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and anti-gun folk who actually have no idea what it is they are demonizing. Most people who hear the truth are quite surprised to find out just how off-base and factually wrong these nay-sayers such as Woody are.

Assault rifles were first developed by the Germans in WWII, and further refined by the Russians post-war as defined by the AK-47. America’s version, the M-4, wasn’t too bad either.

They tried to meet the needs of the soldiers who were actually fighting so the weapons tended to be:

—lightweight —of a smaller caliber —easy to maintain —rugged —Shot from the hip if necessary —fairly accurate out to a reasonable distance. —Could be fired in three different modes, single, 3-shot, and full automatic.

Any extra metal or wood was left off the gun, and if the part wasn’t needed it wasn’t on the gun. This meant that often the stock (the part that goes against the shooter’s cheek) was just a bare outline of metal. This “look” is often consider bizarre by those who never thought about the “why” of it.

Now, being lightweight created it’s own set of problems.

The foremost problem is that the barrel was a skinny, short little thing, which meant that it got pretty hot quickly. This is not good. Even a little .22 rabbit-rifle heats up with enough shots fired just at the firing range, and a soldier didn’t want to be worrying about a hot barrel. That can cause many bad things to happen including ammo accidentally firing at random. To minimize that a “shroud” was used over the barrel, with ventilating holes to carry away the heat and protect the soldiers hands. It didn’t add anything to the gun except to keep the barrel cooler when firing multiple rounds in a short time.

Often a flash-suppressor was added, not to keep the enemy from knowing where the fire is coming from, but to keep the soldier’s nighttime eyesight protected. The enemy would have plenty of notice about where the fire is coming from since the bullets would be coming directly towards him.

Soldiers don’t like humping heavy things; they have enough to carry anyway so the smaller the rounds (bullets) the more the soldier could pack. One can never have too much ammo, but it doesn’t do any good if you’ve left it all back at the barracks.

This meant the majority of the assault riffles were chambered for the .223 round. That means the width of the bullet is only .223 of a full inch. The significance of this?

Well, the most popular round in the world, and the one that is used to take more rabbits and squirrels than any other (because that’s about all it’s powerful enough for) is the .22 Long Rifle.

The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this – you have to drive 220 miles to get to your friends house. But he’s moving three miles further away in a month. Will now driving 223 miles make much of a difference overall?

The actual .223 bullet really isn’t that much larger than a fat grain of rice.

So how does such a small bullet help the soldier? Because the .223 is put into a larger cartridge with more powder it comes out of the barrel much faster than a normal .22. That creates more energy when it hits someone, but the small size of the bullet has always kept it from being considered a sure mankiller. In Vietnam a Marine coined the term “poodle killer” for the .223 and that name has stuck even to today. That was okay with the soldiers because in reality a wounded soldier on the other side was better than a dead soldier. A dead soldier was forgotten about but a wounded one needed on average four other soldiers to take care of him.

Because of the way the gun was normally carried on patrol it was good to have a way to immediately bring it into play… thus the stock and grip were designed to fire, if necessary, from the hip. Couldn’t hit a darn thing with it that way but when in combat the enemy doesn’t necessarily stick their head up to check your accuracy. So it worked in a fashion. Kept the enemies heads down until a soldier could get into a better position behind cover.

The rifle didn’t have to be super accurate and it wasn’t. Especially at a distance. Combat between individual soldiers is just not that far apart. If you can barely see the guy it’s a job for artillery, not rifles.

The main distinguishing feature, though, was it’s ability to “select” fire. The shooter could choose between, with one pull of the trigger, to shoot one shot, three shots, or full automatic which meant the gun would fire all the rounds attached to it. Some magazines held five rounds, some ten, twenty, thirty, and even a hundred.

The truth is though, very few of the assault rifles are ever fired full auto by trained troops. The reason is because they just can’t hit anything. Inside a barn they would have trouble hitting the sides of the barn. The barrel wants to rise with every bullet fired, and unless one is a super-sized Rambo the barrel WILL rise into the air while it’s firing.

Virtually every company commander in Vietnam had a standing rule: an automatic $50.00 fine for any troop who shot his gun at full auto without an express order from the commander. This was the days when $50 was almost a months pay for these guys.

There were some extremely limited times when full auto was helpful, and then one was glad they had it.

Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It’s just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.

Why is the full auto bit stressed. Because these guns are NOT what is being sold today, but yet it is what every one screams about when they say “assault weapons.”

The guns sold to the civilian market that “look like” the military weapons all fire ONE SHOT at a time, just like virtually every other gun on the market. It’s nothing special, and it’s the way civilian rifles have been made for almost 140 years.

Buying a newly-manufactured full-fledged automatic assault weapon has been illegal since 1986, and unless one has jumped through sufficient federal government hoops it is also highly illegal to buy one that was made before 1986.

The process to obtain an older automatic weapon is complicated and expensive, and includes fingerprints by the Feds and an exorbitant federal transfer tax on each full auto weapon.

“Machine guns” and “automatic weapons” are simply not bought down at Walmart. Complaining about someone waking into a store and legally buying fully automatic weapons is akin to complaining about how circuses mistreat unicorns.

Those who talk about “machine guns” blasting away at rabbits or deer are either highly ignorant of the subject or just doing it to demagogue the discussion.

What the anti-gunners mean when they say “assault weapons” are guns that are made to “look like” the real ones. And that’s it. There are a number of variations in manufacturers, and model names, but not a single one of them would be found on a battlefield. The real soldiers would laugh at them.

One can take a little .22 rifle which looks like a harmless little plinking rifle that wouldn’t do any great damage to a armadillo and for a couple of hundred dollars buy all kinds of replacement parts and add-ons such as the barrel-shroud and flash-suppressor that would make it indistinguishable (from the outside) to an “assault rifle.” Yet, internally it would be the same little ol’ .22.

What many in the anti-gun movement are trying to do is to get one to believe that if you put racing stripes and decals on your dad’s Oldsmobile you can take it out to the NASCAR track and compete equally.

Yes, many of the look-alikes fire the same .223 round as the military ones do, but this is considered an underpowered round by the civilian world. It’s certainly less powerful than what Uncle Bob’s deer hunting rifle fires. And, by the way, it does make a perfectly fine hunting gun if used on the right game. Many people think rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge are the absolute best for hunting varmints such as coyotes, and it’s even popular for some small types of deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only fifty yards or so.

They are lightweight, rugged, and easy to maintain because many people, including tens of thousands of ranchers, farmers, and backpackers need this type of rifle while out in the fields. Many police departments in both big and little cities across the nation are converting to these guns for the same reasons.

A farmer friend of mine in northwest Arkansas carries one on the back of his tractor out in the fields. His bane is armadillos, which tear up his crops faster than anything else. When he sees one he shoots it. He needs something that can stand up to the abuse of being shaken for hours on the tractor, is lightweight and short enough not to get in his way, and is powerful enough to pierce the ‘dillo hide. His AR-15, the semi-auto civilian model of the M-4, is perfect for his use.

These rifles can use magazines that hold up to 30 rounds, but if one can shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A. there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple round mags. They kept their neighborhood from burning down. That’s a pretty impressive reason for wanting any weapon.

The civilian models have been made more accurate than the military models because the majority of the guns sold are simply used as target rifles. It’s a huge sport and tens of thousands compete across the country to see who can maintain the most accurate rifle. Go to most outdoor ranges and you’ll see all kinds of guys with their AR-15s and others at the line. These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.

Many of these folk are former military who hold fond memories of those days. Others just want to look cool, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. A lot of them consider the military as “heroes” and want to emulate them.

Again, these guns may “look” like a military weapon but they are the farthest thing from one… they fire just one bullet at a time the way every other civilian rifle is sold. There is fundamentally no difference between them and Uncle Bob’s hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a smaller type bullet.

Now that you know the truth of the matter you can spot when someone is ignorant about assault weapons and yet are still willing to give their opinion about something they know nothing about.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 03:08 PM | Link to this

“Power changes people and guns provide more power than any one individual was meant to have.”

As you read the following be thinking of the questions, What would Woody have me to do? What would Woody have done? What would Woody have wanted his wife to do? And is Woody really this cold-blooded that he wants innocents to die just to satisfy his fear of guns?

As you may be aware, Indiana is one of the almost 40 states where citizens can exercise their right to bear arms on a daily basis. I am one of the 350,000 Hoosiers who chose to do so.

A little while back, my work took me into Gary, which has been the murder capitol of the U.S. for several of the past ten years.

I parked my van in the church parking lot where my business was, and having locked the door behind me, went to meet the pastor. After the meeting I headed back to the van.

When I was about 100 feet from the van, I noticed two young, urban youths coming down the other side of the street. They saw me at the same time. They immediately wheeled in my direction and, after diagonally crossing the street, started walking towards me. Any instructor of self-defense techniques will tell you that is a clear and present danger signal.

I managed to make it back to the van, while listening to them the whole time trash-talking about how they were the baddest ones in the ‘hood and they didn’t take no crap from no one. They were catching up to me pretty fast.

The driver door was on the other side of the van, away from the street, and I understood that I would have to have my back turned to them as I was trying to unlock the door. Not only would any action they took be blocked from any passerby, but it put me in a highly vulnerable position.

Now, it’s easy to say that I should not have put myself in that position in the first place by going to Gary, but that only holds true if one is willing to redline the entire city.

I must admit, I was quite concerned for my safety. I’m past middle-aged, slow, fat, and with a bum leg. Facing down two urban youths was not what I wanted to do when I woke up that morning, ready to greet the day. However, that was exactly what I had to do, because no more than a second or two after I reached the driver’s door the two came around the back side of my van and began approaching me.

Because I have a mature understanding about guns I am able to finish the story. As I rounded the back of the van myself, I put my hand into my front pocket and wrapped it around my legally carried handgun. When I reached the locked driver’s door, I turned and put my back to the door, and faced outward, keeping my hand in the pocket. I had the confidence that if needed, I was going to be able to defend myself, and quite possibly, my life.

This must have showed on my face. The youths came around the back of the van and saw me calmly standing there waiting for them. I didn’t say anything, and I didn’t pull the gun - but my attitude certainly said they needed to reconsider any very-near future actions they were contemplating.

They were predators, and they understood this very well. Weak targets of opportunity are eaten quickly, but those who give strong indications that they’ll bite back are left alone. They backed away, turned, and headed across the lot to places unknown.

According to the desires of Woody I should have been forced to somehow run instead of facing down these two thugs. Got that? If I am minding my own business and am assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal Woody wants the onus to be on me to flee, retreat, submit, or even die — anything EXCEPT stand my ground with a firearm.

How morally and intellectually backwards can Woody be to adopt such an indefensible position? The duty and perfect right of a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals. That is the essence of the disagreement between the opposing sides on gun control.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

Here’s what a friend of mine wrote her young daughter…compare the level of maturity and thoughfulness between her and Woody.

A Letter To My Daughter By Lana White Austin - -

Dear Alexandra,

You may still be young, but I want to start very early in your life telling you about a subject that is vital to me and you and everyone we know who values freedom. While you will frequently hear dissenting views, many vehemently proclaimed, know that I have reached my opinions through years of research, personal experience and hopefully from a perspective of integrity.

Guns will be blamed for numerous deaths and injuries when, in fact, it’s people who should be blamed. As our society seems to be ripped to shreds and morality, commitment and common sense are left behind, something will have to be blamed for the remaining chaos.

Many people will turn to guns as the target of their rage and frustration. Some will be innocent in their views. Perhaps they’ve experienced first hand the pain of losing someone and are looking for a reason. Their pain is undeniable. I am a mother and I grieve with them. But I can’t support their conclusions - they’re wrong.

You will see the media frequently report only a partial version of the truth. You’ll hear about tragic events in schools where senseless violence took the lives of the innocent. You’ll hear guns take the brunt of the blame, not the many other factors that contribute to such heinous events. While the images frequently portrayed on television, those of distraught families dealing with the loss of a loved one, will break your heart, don’t be deterred in your dedication to defending the truth. Without guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, there will be far more bloodshed and far more distraught families.

Although you’ll rarely see it accurately portrayed by the media, the truth is that where law-abiding men and women can carry guns for their own protection crime goes down. That means less violence, less death, less innocent children to be buried. I feel that when I fight for my right to bear arms, I am, in actuality, saving more innocent children. So many people have it backwards. We have to share the truth with them.

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.

The language of the Second Amendment is pretty clear, if you know just a little bit of history. Some people twist the words to suit their own purposes, though. They’ll try to tell you that that first subordinate clause guarantees the right for states to have a state militia or the National Guard. Not even close. When the Framers of the Constitution said “militia”, they meant you.

That’s right, every able-bodied citizen old enough to bear arms. It’s an individual right. When the Second Amendment says “the people”, it means just that, like it does in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Also notice that the Constitution doesn’t give you your rights, it protects the bold claims of the Declaration of Independence, that we are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

After all, what good are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the means to protect them? People who want to take this right away from you are afraid of your freedom. That’s why gun control has its roots in the worst kinds of rascism. The first gun control laws in this country served to deny free blacks and American Indians the right to defend themselves.

As a woman, you’ll meet people who don’t think you’re capable of responsibly owning a gun. Those people are the ideological descendants of the men who didn’t want black Americans to be able to fight off lynch mobs.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you otherwise. Defend this right with your life if you have to because all other constitutional freedoms could be taken away if we waver on the right to bear arms.

Time and time again women have been saved from horrible things - rape and death - because they carried a gun. It can truly be the only thing that can “level the playing field” in situations like that when you’re smaller and you’re alone, confronted by danger. When you’re old enough we’ll teach you how to safely handle, shoot and care for the guns in house. We make sure that you can safely and securely defend yourself with a gun if the situation ever arises.

This is so important to me because I feel that it is my moral obligation as your parent to help you be independent and to protect you in any possible situation. I hope that one day you feel the same way about providing your daughter with the same opportunity to fully protect herself.

Keep in mind, though, that not only will shooting sports provide great amusement, they can be instrumental in teaching self-discipline, attention to detail, responsibility and other values as well.

Statistics can be misreported or only half the story told in an effort to twist your mind and force you to believe something that isn’t true, so you have to do more research and look beneath the surface of information you’re given. You will hear how thousands of people die from firearms every year, but you won’t hear how thousands more people were saved by the use of guns. I feel completely confident that if you are willing to do thorough research that you will come to the same conclusions that I have.

What could possibly be more important that that?

That’s why I’m writing you this letter. I love you and wish for you and my future grandchildren and their children and so on, and so on, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I believe with my whole heart that our right to bear arms is the only way to ensure that you and future generations will still have that

Love, Your Mother

By Brian Curtis

February 5, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

“Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline. If you’re obsessive-compulsive, please press 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1.”

Sounds like somebody’s hot-button has been pushed.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 03:21 PM | Link to this

“Next week, I will propose my plan to eliminate some, if not the majority, of that irresponsibility.

Ten will get you one that ol’ Woody will get around to talking about treating guns “just like cars.”

Okay… I’m game for that. But let us explore a moment what that means…

Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No.

Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No.

Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes

Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes

Can I buy Hummers like the troops use? Yes.

Do I need a license to buy a car? No (in most states)

Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes.

Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes

Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes. Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes

Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)

Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No

Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No

Do I need to “safe store” my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No

Will I lose my driver’s license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not

Can I legally drive my car into any state/city in the nation with every jurisdiction honoring my registration/license? Yes

Shall I go on? Or do we really, really want to treat guns like cars?

In Addition:

IF GUNS WERE TREATED LIKE CARS :

10 The news would stop reporting gun accidents unless more than 10 children were killed at one time. Onesy-twosey would only be notable in small towns or if Princess Di’s bodyguard shot her while aiming at paparazzi.

11 If the price of ammunition rose 20% the Federal Government would release war reserves of ammo to bring the price back down to the consumer’s comfort level.

Ammo would carry a 50% tax to finance public shooting ranges.

12 We’d teach gunsmithing in vocational-education programs.

13 Every 16 year old would be looking forward to the day when he could take the family revolver to school. The rich kids would get a high capacity semi-auto pistol on their 16th birthday and endanger everyone when they learn to use it in public.

14 High schools would have large gun lockers to store student’s arms while they attend classes. Administrators would try to charge for the service to discourage teen-age gun carrying to school.

15 Schools would have shooter’s education classes to make sure the kids could pass the test. They would show gory films of gunshot wounds. The squeamish would throw up.

16 Old people who can hardly see would still be permitted to shoot in public because to disarm them would be to damage their self-esteem. Families would wring their hands over holes in the walls and ceiling.

Occasionally an oldster would fire into a schoolyard when they mistake the trigger for the safety. Legislators would refrain from criticizing because of the AARP’s influence.

17 Congress would be debating alternative weapons systems for people who can’t afford their own guns.

18 There would be such a thing as “public weapons” for the masses.

19 Congress would be subsidizing weapons for people too limited in means to afford their own.

20 Congress would be willing to float a loan to Colt’s in order to ensure the survival of an American company against unfair foreign competition. (Think “Chrysler”)

21 We, except for Ralph Nader, would dismiss 40,000 deaths and 500,000 injuries per year as “the price of freedom.”

22 You would have MADS. Mothers Against Drunk Shooters (instead of HCI). MADS would conduct a campaign of public education instead of trying to use the force of government to prohibit irresponsible drinking and shooting.

23 You could rent a gun at any airport if you are over 25 and have a credit card.

24 You would have the fringe-greenies advocating bows and arrows because they think gunsmoke is damaging the environment.

Al Gore would write a book about the damaging effects of gunsmoke.

Al Gore would also claim to have been a handloader before his sister died in a powder fire.

25 You’d have huge outcry in the Press and Congress over our dependence on cheap, imported, foreign ammunition.

26 Ted Kennedy would have shot Mary Jo Kopekne instead. Ted would be a few thousand dollars richer (bullet:$0.25 vs car:$3000)

Ted would stop carrying his own gun and instead, hire bodyguards to carry fully-automatic weapons under their coats for him.

27 You’d have businesses like “Jiffy Gun-Clean” to make life convenient. But you’d always worry that they might not have gotten the magazine fully seated afterwards.

28 You’d have “Classic Gun Events” with parades on public roads as everyone with such a classic carries it for all the public to see.

29 You’d have huge eyesores where piles of guns are left to rust in the open at “Gun Junk Yards”. They would charge you outrageous prices to go out back and pick off a hammer or sear which is probably also worn out like the one you want to replace.

30 There would be a booming business and debate about substituting non-OEM parts in the gun repair business.

31 You’d have TV news crews going under cover with hidden cameras to ferret out “unscrupulous gun smiths.” This story would be “old reliable” and works every year.

32 The Japanese would be trying, and succeeding, at taking over the market for efficient, reliable high-quality guns.

The Koreans would be trying to sneak in at the low end of the market.

The Germans would be selling premium brands based on better workmanship, longer life, and brand cachet. But their guns would require you to take it to a gunsmith every 3 months for a complete tear-down and dimensional inspection at outrageous labor rates.

The Italians would paint their guns flaming red and they would have a reputation for being finicky.

The State Department would be applying pressure to get Japan to allow more US-built guns into their country.

The Japanese would resist the US by saying that Japanese shooters have extra-special safety requirements that only Japanese manufacturers can meet.

33 You’d have an entire section of the Saturday Coloradoan devoted to ads for new and used guns.

34 You’d have a pair of fun-loving gunsmiths on Public Radio doing a show on gun problems. They’d be named “Tap & Rack”

35 There would have been a terrible TV show back in the black & white days named “My Mother - The Gun”. It starred Jerry Van D** and ran just one season.

36 Dean Jones would have made a series of stupid movies starring Herbie the Love-Gun. Herbie was an adorable anthropomorphized cheap German Saturday Night Special. Dean Jones would never show his face in public again after these movies.

37 Competition would be carried on TV all day on Saturdays. The Daytona 500 would be round-count instead of miles. There would be speed contests, endurance contests, and off-range marksmanship events.

NASGUN would create big heroes in the South and extravagant marketing opportunities.

38 High-schools would paint up a gun in the colors of the opposition and charge $.25 for you to swing a sledge hammer at that gun during pep rallys.

39 John Elway would own half the gunstores in the Denver Metro area.

40 Wellington Webb’s wife would be carrying the finest English Double shotgun money can buy while Wellington has body guards to carry his semi-auto pistols for him.

41 Back in the 1970’s during the ammo crisis, Congress would have set a maximum cyclic rate for autos and semi autos in order to conserve ammo.

42 After Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait, the national cyclic rate was raised to something all semi-autos can be comfortable with.

43 The Coloradoan would be publishing the locations of range repair work every week to be sure no one would be inconvenienced.

44 The Beach Boys would have released some songs about guns:

“Spring little Cobray gettin’ ready to strike….. Spring little Cobray with all your might…..”

“She’s real fine my Wonder Nine, she’s real fine my Won-der Nine.”

“Fun, fun, fun ‘til Daddy takes her Kel-Tec away……”

45 Letters to editors would be written decrying that all those Soccer Moms are lugging .50 cal machine guns around town, wasting ammo and getting in everybody’s way.

46 Letters to editors would be written responding that putting one’s beginning driver son or daughter behind a .50 cal would mean that the writer’s offspring would survive any conflict with lesser armed individuals.

47 Al Gore would claim he invented the .50cal cartridge and say he was sorry.

48 Cities would be experimenting with electric guns but would be surprised to find that people would step in front of them at the range because they were too quiet so no one knew the electric gun was there.

49 President Clinton would demand that electric gun manufacturers put a cowbell on each one to prevent senseless accidents.

50 The National Rifle Association would be reduced to selling travel insurance for your guns because the rest of society will have seen to it that there would be no chance that firearms would ever be banned.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

““Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline. If you’re obsessive-compulsive, please press 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1.””

Your right, Brian… Woody writing three papers on guns and gun control in one college semester probably is a little OCB, but hey, it’s a free country and if his profs don’t mind who are we to say otherwise.

His continuing need to deal with his irrational fears out in public though strike me as a person who knows he is too much of a coward to take care of the safty of his family and is therefore trying to bring all others down to his level instead of taking a look inside and raising his game up to what’s necessary. But he’ll have to deal with that himself.

Thanks for helping him by pointing out at least one of his problems though.

By Joe Huffman

February 5, 2007 03:31 PM | Link to this

I have Just One Question for Woody:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this

“Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”

I’ll take your challenge up Joe, since Woody is too busy on sensory overload realizing that sometimes a gun in the home actually CAN help a child.

Yes, not having access to a Glock (or knife, or sword, or shotgun) kept Cain and Abel from ever quarreling and led them to enjoy a long and fruitful life together until they both died of old age (which in those days were really, really old).

So there.

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 04:02 PM | Link to this

Jack Burton: Good points (those Ive had time to read so far that is).. and again.. Ill do my best to address them here or in next week’s blog.

Joe Huffman: I remember reading about 5 or so years ago about someone who did that very research. Ill try to find the link again and post here.

By woodys mom

February 5, 2007 04:31 PM | Link to this

this is one thing woody and i dont talk about at all. in one way i agree with him that gun control needs to be enforced. when it comes to guns in homes they should be regulated and locked up. if they are a responsible gun owners and keep all weapons locked up then you dont have to worry about children around them. but guns should be kept in a gun safe locked up. if and accident happens because of not be a responsible gun owner then you should pay the consequences according to the law. in other wards im not like woody i do believe in the right to bear arms but with responiblity. i personally plan on getting a snake shot gun for those d** rattle snakes in tenn that is suppose to be on our property.. hate snakes worse than guns for sure…

By Kristopher

February 5, 2007 05:49 PM | Link to this

I’ll save you the trouble of looking up that 5 year old research.

The “researcher” is named Kellermann. He claimed that a home with a firearm in it is 43 times more likely to suffer a firearms accident/assault of one of the family members.

He worked for a major anti-gun group while spending 2 million dollars of federal CDC funds on his bogus research. He has, to this date, refused to release his data for peer review.

No peer review = Not science

By Joe Huffman

February 5, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this

Woody, the CDC reviewed a bunch of papers on the topic in 2003. Perhaps you can leverage some of their work in your search for evidence.

See also the original link to Just One Question.

Good luck! :-)

By Chuck@PodunkOutpost

February 5, 2007 06:09 PM | Link to this

Jack,

Hell of a job your doing, even if you are missing a couple of source citations…

By Heard it here first

February 5, 2007 06:33 PM | Link to this

Kristopher and Joe: Kellermann doesnt ring a bell, I believe the source to the article I am referring to was the ATF but I am still looking for the article again so I can clarify.

I will check out the link as soon as I can Joe.

By Kevin Roth

February 5, 2007 06:51 PM | Link to this

I was shot by another student in high school, the year was 1966 when I was 14 years old. The shooter had been a victim of teasing and he took his dad’s 22 cal. pistol to school that october morning. He shot me and killed an administrator. I own one shot gun, one rifle and a pistol…all are used for pleasure, hunting and target practice. I do not keep the ammunition near the locked guns, so my point is people need to be responsible gun owners. Checkout: colimbinedangels.com for schools shootings in the US.

By Scott Hamilton

February 5, 2007 08:01 PM | Link to this

“What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.

In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are available), 742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States last year alone. Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75 percent of the total — occurred in residential swimming pools. According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.

About 175 children under the age of 10 died in 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns.

Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is. “

quoted from Steven D. Levitt, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago

By James Mullen

February 5, 2007 08:25 PM | Link to this

Kristopher, the so-called study you mention was performed by Dr. Arthur Kellerman. How he got those numbers was by including suicides in his data samples instead of limiting them to crimes committed or accidents with a firearm within the home.

Anti-gun groups love to claim that approximately 30,000 Americans die from gun violence each year. While that number is accurate, they are not the result of “gun violence”. Just over half of that number (30,000) are composed of suicides. A quick visit to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report will verify the number of people who are murdered and what weapon was used.

FBI UCR Data: Murder By Weapon http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expandedinformation/data/shrtable07.html

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 08:51 PM | Link to this

I never knew my paternal grandfather — he died before I was born. I just found out this past Christmas Eve about the deep dark family secret that was revealed only 20 years after Dad died.

Grandpa suicided with the family shotgun. One shot to the chest.

He had problems that would have broken most men. But he was a farmer, and farmers do what needs done in the most efficient way. If he had no gun, it would have been something else.

I’ve always been sorrowful that I never met Grandpa. From all accounts he was a heck of a guy. But Grandpa’s choice of death never kept my Dad from hunting with HIS shotgun… and his choice should never be able to affect any other person’s enjoyment or ability to use their guns.

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 09:17 PM | Link to this

Jack Burton And I am not suggesting that the solution is to change what the Bill of Rights grants regardless of how I may personally feel. I think that is one point many commenting seem to be missing.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 10:42 PM | Link to this

Woody…

That you personally believe that all guns should be banned is not open to question. You say that you also understand that we have a right enumerated in the Constitution to keep and bear arms.

That’s fine with me. I don’t have any problem with folk who feel differently from me, or even with those who use their powers of persuasion (and a bully pulpit) to move others to their position.

What I have real objections to though, are:

1) Those who are not content with persuading people to their point of view, but instead would like the full force of the government to force their point of view on others.

2) Those who are in the public arena with an anti-gun point of view that is based upon their desire to be in control of others lives. They know best how to run a society, and having independent minded people out there who disagree with them greatly interferes with their agenda.

3) Those who are in the public arena with an anti-gun point of view that is based upon error, false studies, and unexamined emotions that don’t stand up to reality. They’re basically good people, but they just are ignorant.

I have a strong feeling that you belong squarely in Camp #3.

I have lost count of the number of formerly anti-gun people who, upon finding out that they had been outright lied to from Brady and others about the nature of assault weapons, have done enough independent studies to realize that almost everything they thought about guns was also a lie.

The anti-gun left has been pushing the “assault weapon” lie for almost two decades. Its misinformation campaign has been repeated so much that it is starting to be taken as truth. This orchestrated demonization of guns that simply look like military firearms kicked off in the late 1980s.

In a report titled “Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation,” in March 1989, Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center published the following statement:

“Assault weapons … are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Many people who previous fell prey to this disinformation campaign are not necessarily rabidly pro-gun now, but they are much more willing to understand the nature of the two sides.

Like you, I mourn the passing of a time when we could walk the streets with the understanding that criminal assault was something that happened to others, usually far away.

While I know that it is still, statistically, unlikely that a criminal will attack either myself or my family I have often viewed my preparation for it as I do the possibility of a flat tire.

I keep my tires inflated to the proper level, and replace them when worn. I try to avoid places where it appears tire damage may occur. I am sure that part of it has been luck, but I have been driving for 32 years with never a flat tire.

Nevertheless, I always carry a spare tire in my trunk. One never knows what misfortune the future will bring.

This is why I am so pleased to be living in Indiana. Indiana allows me and my wife the choice of being able to carry a concealed handgun, and we have taken this option for ourselves.

We are just normal, everyday people who have come to an understanding that no one else but ourselves are ultimately responsible for our safety. It is a grave responsibility, and it is unfair of us to expect someone else to shoulder it for us.

We do take precautions in our lives. We have a professional alarm system installed in our home (with very visible signs telling potential home invaders that our neighbors might be easier targets), and we have all taken safety courses on how to watch for dangerous situations. We try our best to avoid times and places where we might place ourselves into harm.

However, one never knows what misfortune the future will bring. We do know, with almost a sure guarantee, that a police officer will not be standing next to us when it happens. (And besides, my wife insists she is far beyond the point where, in a crunch, she still expects a MAN to come to her protection.)

We still retain all the options that other people have. We can still run, we can scream, we can call 911 (if given time), and we can acquiesce. Notwithstanding that, though, we also have the option of using our gun to protect our lives. As virtually all CCW holders have been, we are trained to make that an option that is far down the list.

I hope to God that I or my wife never have to do so.

Will having a concealed handgun or a “house gun” save us from every bad event. Most likely not. It is not a magic talisman, protecting us from all harm in all situations. However, it is a great comfort when my wife walks out to her car at 1:30 AM after closing her store. She’s a skinny 5’2” and there simply is no other as-effective way of protecting herself from even the average sized male.

An interesting question to ask your friends who are strongly “anti-gun” is who they would prefer at their side if they are in a situation of do or die; someone just like you, or someone like me and my wife — people who are certified law-abiding citizens by both the FBI and state police, and who are trained in shooting fast and accurately.

I have often found that most people will hem and haw around this question and never give a straight answer to it.

Those of us who legally own and carry weapons are quite concerned about those who misuse guns… and stories like you mentioned help us reflect on what could/should have been done in these particular instances to have prevented the problem in the first place. It helps us be more careful.

We who have made the choice to carry firearms on a daily basis know better than most anyone just what destructive power they have in the wrong hands, and it pains us greatly to see one misused to hurt innocent people. After all, it’s our wives, and children, and siblings, and parents, and friends that are also walking these same streets.

You might be surprised to hear how we can jump on the bones of someone who admits to carelessness and thoughtlessness in the care and handling of firearms (or in letting a child have access to one).

I’ve seen dozens of replies many times to a beginner’s question of “how can I secure my gun to keep others from it.”

What makes this tendency to help new owners so fascinating is the sheer ingenuity of workable solutions — all from people who actually know what they are talking about. It’s kind of like having a mechanic help you discern what’s wrong with your car instead of the local butcher (not that there’s anything wrong with butchers, but car repairs aren’t always their area of expertise).

We both know that 99% of the gun owners in America will never use their gun in a way to bring dishonor to either them, their family, or the gun. Instead of using the dishonorable one percent to guide your decisions and influence your ideas why not use the collective wisdom of the other 99%?

Please know that I lost my grandfather due to a careless use of a handgun by my uncle, his son. That was fifty years ago and at a family funeral last year for one of the uncles involved there was still deep bitterness over the loss of a father. My sister’s estranged husband blew his brains out with a gun while trying to talk her into coming back to him during a phone conversation. Sue had to listen to him threaten to do so, and then hear the c** of the gun and the discharge, knowing that she could do nothing to stop him. I myself have had several guns pointed at me while working retail in a bad section of the country.

Yet, I know that my grandfather would have been just as dead as if my uncles ran over him with their car, and my brother-in-law would have been just as dead as if he sliced his wrists on the phone. And I would certainly have surrendered the money just as fast if the robbers had baseball bats.

In each case the gun had no mind of its own, but was a tool that was negligently used and misused. For me to blame the firearm in any of these circumstances would be to fantasize that an inanimate object had somehow a mind of its own.

We go to a church that has recently been in a high growth mode. In Sunday School this morning our teacher mentioned that one can always tell “after the fact” when a church has become “proud” and has lost the sense that God is the one that blesses… but it’s very difficult to know when the moment is that the church puts its foot on that path. He asked for prayer that we not put our foot on that path that leads to the downfall of many churches.

Afterwards several of us were talking with him on the clarification of a finer point of theology over which there was some disagreement He referenced another church in the area and disparaged their understanding of the issue, and bluntly said they didn’t know of what they were speaking.

I immediately jumped in and reminded him of his statement about initially setting the foot on the path that leads to pride, and told him he just stepped squarely on that first step. The folk at the other church were honorable, and while they had an understanding that may be different from his it was not our place to be shallowly dismissive of their hundreds of years of study and practice as they best saw God’s will. His quick judgement and assumption that God spoke only to us on this matter was purely his pride speaking.

He was immediately repentant of what he said, and truly saw his mistake.

I ask the same of you. I have trained dozens of people in the safe use of guns. My friends have trained hundreds, if not thousands. I have safely stored several firearms for twenty years. My friends have stored dozens of firearms, many for thirty, forty, and in one case, seventy years. I have carried a firearm for several years, my friends have carried for many, many years.

If you truly want to learn how to fish, you don’t hang out with the PETA folk. If you want to learn how to grow wheat and corn you don’t move to Japan. And if you want to truly know how to best create a safe environment for children to grow up, then you listen to those of us who have been living that life for years.

By Mike Fox

February 5, 2007 11:09 PM | Link to this

Discusting is, as disgusting does!

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 11:44 PM | Link to this

Very thoughtful Jack… Thank you. The answer to this question:

Instead of using the dishonorable one percent to guide your decisions and influence your ideas why not use the collective wisdom of the other 99%?

is coming next week. Of all my friends and family who do own guns that I have run the idea for the past, they have all been in full agreement with it. I think you will be as well. Just keep in mind that it will be explained at a very high level with a basic outline of the plan.

I too have my own stories and experiences with guns. Perhaps I will have time to share some of them someday.

By Tom

February 6, 2007 02:18 AM | Link to this

You know what we really don’t need? Another ignorant overweight sports fan with a dog who likes to worship overpaid criminals who play games and pat themselves on the rear when not blowing untold millions on drugs, “bling” and cars. Just think if all you people who support this lifestyle would just NOT spend your money on it, the homeless and needy could be taken care of.

Go choke down another cheeseburger, which I might add, probably was harvested with the help of a gun you hypocrite.

See you at the gunshow? Make sure to wear your “I’m an arrogant self deluded self righteous loser” shirt

By Yeah, I said it

February 6, 2007 05:51 AM | Link to this

Hey Woody, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. People also use poison, knives, bats, sledge hammers, their hands and who knows what else to kill—it’s not always a gun you know. I hunt and will keep my weapons thank you. And since there are million of people out there currently owning guns, legally or illegally how do you propose we protect ourselves from the crimminals? Rely on the police department?? that’s a laughing stock right there. Sometimes police go bad too. If you don’t like guns then don’t own one. Plain and simple. I hope that you never suffer from a home invasion.

By B

February 6, 2007 06:29 AM | Link to this

“The general public has no reason to own firearms such as semi-automatic guns or assault rifles”

If, by “assault rifle,” you mean those dreadful looking black rifles with a pistol grip, then, yes, actually, we do. Using myself as an example:

I often spend up to ten hours a day in front of a computer programming web applications and doing various types of graphic design. And as anyone with roughly equivalent keyboard or screen-time knows, this puts one at risk of developing RSI/Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

What does this have to do with so-called “assault rifles?” Well, since you’re admittedly unfamiliar with the history of martial technology, the pistol grip is, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than an ergonomic device. The reason you don’t see them on old-fashioned/classic rifles (or even early pistols) is that the concept of ergonomics was unheard of when they were originally developed. Not to mention the advances in metallurgy and other material engineering techniques (EG, modern plastics) which came hand-in-hand with breakthroughs in medicine and science in general.

So, being that the pistol grip is designed to align the shooter’s hand in a natural, non-fatiguing position, it should be considered a safety device in the modern world of computers, Blackberries, etc..

Don’t believe me? Try this simple experiment:

First, position yourself in a conventional typing position (arms/wrists basically in line), and press the space bar a couple of hundred times with your index fingers. Comfortable still? Of course.

Now, from the same sitting position, place your elbows on the desk to either side of the keyboard, and lay your forearms down flat so they are within 15-20° of parallel to the front of the keyboard. Then twist your wrists so only your hands are at a somewhat normal typing angle, and repeat the space bar exercise above.

Depending on the how much keyboard use (and its progression towards RSI) you’ve amassed over time, the results should range from an uncomfortable tightness to physical pain.

Now imagine the keyboard weighs seven to ten pounds and you’re holding it off the desk. Also imagine that the space bar requires four to eight pounds of pressure every time you press it, and that each key-press causes the keyboard to jerk back vigorously. This is essentially what you would be experiencing if you went to a rifle range.

As such, how exactly would banning something which protects my wrists make you— or anybody else —any safer? Because that is all any and every so-called “assault weapon” ban has ever done. All you or uninformed politicians ever base these bans on is the scary appearance of rifles with pistol grips.

Pistol grips do not make a rifle any more powerful or deadly. A rifle with and without a pistol grip which share the same ammunition and barrel length have the exact same firepower. In fact, as a previous poster has mentioned, most “assault rifles” use relatively low powered ammo. The AR-15, for instance, has less than one third of the power of popular deer rifles which use .300Winchester rounds.

Anyhow, going back to the keyboard metaphor, banning rifles with pistol grips would make as much sense as banning ergonomic keyboards with wrist wrests. If a politician came forward and proposed such an idea because modern keyboards allow writers to ‘spray-fire slander from the hip,’ or are otherwise ‘only useful to hackers and cyber-terrorists,’ you and the rest of the media would eat the politician alive. And, hey, guess what, even “gun nuts” such as myself would be right beside you, decrying the law for the veiled attack on the First Amendment it would be.

By william

February 6, 2007 06:46 AM | Link to this

jefferson said that the main reason for the people to keep and bear arms was, as a last resort, a defense against government gone bad. though we may seem too modern or advanced for a coup it is not an impossibility. i wonder how we are to protect our rights with bolt action bb guns versus machine guns? and i suppose the author trusts human kind to always reguard his safety and well being, i certainly do not. and what of females who are at a distinct physical disadvantage in a confrontation with a male. i guess in the interest of public safety they should just go with it. i’ll be able to defend myself and my loved ones, law or no law.

By Matt

February 6, 2007 07:23 AM | Link to this

**Woody, I’m sorry, but you’re an idiot. I really hate to start the name calling in a debate, but I really feel it’s OK here. You say:

Don’t try the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument with me. I really despise that saying.

Yea, let’s not bring a logical argument into your debate. Let’s be forced to only debate your illogical argument.

Why stop with guns? Let’s make the speed limit on the highways only 3 MPH. I don’t see anyone being killed that way.

Oh, and lets ban SUV’s too. Little kids have been killed by people backing over them not being able to see them.

Got any knives in your kitchen? Gone. Too dangerous.

Look, move to China already. I’m so tired of people like you. People who claim the are “independent.” I started laughing when you said that. I have a friend who’s an “independent” yet all of his views are strikingly Democratic.

Boo-hoo, there are guns. Get over it. Quit blaming the gun.

Here are some facts about guns:

http://www.mattandthat.com/temp/myths.zip

By James Mullen

February 6, 2007 07:57 AM | Link to this

Quote from Woody: “I am not suggesting that the solution is to change what the Bill of Rights grants…”

Woody, the Bill of Rights grants nothing. It enumerates our rights, it does not grant them. U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. vs. Cruikshank stated that our rights were not granted by the Constitution nor were they in any way dependent upon that instrument for their existance. Our rights our inherent and they predate the Constitution.

By Brian Curtis

February 6, 2007 08:17 AM | Link to this

Awww, what happened to Jack? I was hoping for another few hundred cut-and-paste jobs ranting about the magic and majesty of gun-love!

If only these staunch defenders of freedom cared as much about the First Amendment as they do about the Second.

By jac

February 6, 2007 08:42 AM | Link to this

This guy should post a sign in his front yard. “Gun free zone. Criminals take note.”

Even if his fantasy were possible, it would only empower the thugs over the weak. Crime would increase and people would cower in their homes as they do in England.

Guns are used frequently as defensive weapons and are in fact the only viable means of defense for most women and older citizens.

Anyone who believes that gun control will reduce crime is naive, delusional or stupid. This guy probably qualifies on all three counts.

It’s not the guns. It’s the feral low life that have no respect for laws, property or human life. Take away the guns and you’ll have the same effect only with knives and clubs.

By KA

February 6, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Woody, It appears from your emotional outburst that started this discussion, and from your subsequent comments that you came to the table with strong feelings but no facts to support your position. Are you a journalist or just a community columinist? You have alluded to some plan that you will present next week. Is that because you had no facts, and didn’t think this column through, and so it will take a week for you to think about it? Here’s some advice; if you write a column, do your research first, both pro and con, and come to the table with the ‘plan.’ BTW the fact that you wrote three papers on this in college doesn’t constitute supporting facts for your position.

By B

February 6, 2007 09:16 AM | Link to this

“If only these staunch defenders of freedom cared as much about the First Amendment as they do about the Second.”

And what makes you think we don’t? Oh. That’s right. It’s called projection. Because YOU don’t care about the entire Bill of Rights, you automatically assume others don’t as well. Thanks for playing.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 09:27 AM | Link to this

At the VERY least a pistol permit should be needed to purchase a handgun. It is not very hard, a form, an FBI check, fingerprints and the cost to me I believe was about $45.00 dollars. I would like to see a basic course on the laws, proper handling, safety, but most importantly safe storage.

This only applies to handguns, no registration and according to our federal Constitution does not infringe on the Second Amendment.

As far a rifles, if you need an assault weapon to attack a deer, its not hunting or you must be one lousey shot.

Enforce the federal law, carry a handgun without a permit it is an automatic five years.

By arthur

February 6, 2007 09:45 AM | Link to this

Bass, Is that your real name or just a pseudonym alluding to your intellectual capacity.

How about this, I hate automobiles. No one should have over 100 horsepower or a pickup truck that can carry a half ton. These autos roam our highways and are responsible for 50,000 deaths per year.

What you are missing Bass, besides IQ, is that guns don’t intimidate people, criminals intimidate. A legal gun owner that uses a firearm needlessly to intimidate someone is a CRIMINAL. Furthermore, criminals do not need a gun to intimidate. The biggest weapon a criminal has is their “criminality”. That means they have a mindset to do you serious irrepairable harm…they are willing and they will suffer no pains of conscience. They will seek out the weak and beat, stone, baseball bat, or stomp them to death. Perhaps they will stab them to death with one of their own kitchen knives.

Good people on the other hand, even if their lives depend on it, cannot bring themselves to the level of brutality necessary to stomp another human to death for example but, they may be able to defend themselves effectively with a firearm.

So, get out of your vehicle and start walking.

By Brian Curtis

February 6, 2007 09:48 AM | Link to this

You sure can generate a lot of hate by questioning the gun religion, Woody. If it was your goal to stir things up by prodding the crazies, you’ve done it. Congrats!

By Kimber Jones

February 6, 2007 09:54 AM | Link to this

I agree. All evil conveyances should be banned, including automobiles, alcohol and tobacco—each one of which kills far more people that firearms each year. Oh—and let’s not forget to ban swimming pools, the number one killer of chidren in the U.S.

By Tom

February 6, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

I have no use for someone visibly so lacking in self-discipline as the author trying to tell me how to live and protect my family.

If the author lacks the personal responsibility to put the cheeseburger(s) down and see to his own health, he has no role in determining what is right for others.

Clearly…cheeseburgers and Twinkies are far too easily available.

By Tom Again

February 6, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

And how about this quote from Woody’s article:

“The general public has no reason to own firearms such as semi-automatic guns or assault rifles and should be completely banned and destroyed, along with all the other types of guns (as far as I am concerned).”

So…the general public should be completely banned and destroyed?

Is this a grade-school grammar defect, or a Freudian slip? Wanna send gun owners to the death camps, Woody?

I find obese people at least as disgusting as Woody finds guns, but I’m not advocating any governmental restrictions on their right to binge…and I wouldn’t even think of “banning and destroying” fatties regardless of their repugnance.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

These NRA junkies, led by a Frenchmen no less, Wayne LaPierre has them believeing that the “Right to Bear Arms” is the entire Second Amendment and that the Second Amendment is the only place the issues of arms is raised in the Constitution. If they have read the Constitution the right to bear arms is not as black and white as it would seem. I suggest before they follow LaPierre into the valley of death they do some research into the document they misquote so often.

By KA

February 6, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Someone said it already, but I will repeat it; RIGHTS are something we are endowed with by the Creator, and our US Constitution does not give us any rights. Another news flash for you anti-gun folks; not all gun owners are NRA members or junkies as you call them.

By Brian Curtis

February 6, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

KA: True. But the ones who cut-and-paste dozens of gun-fondling columns, launch personal attacks, make irrelevant slippert-slope analogies, and otherwise screech about the “insanity” of any attempt to discuss the gun issue whatsoever… well, their junkie status is pretty obvious.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

KA, I have a couple of handguns and a pistol permit, read what I wrote above about a common sense approach before jumping the gun so to speak.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

“But the ones who cut-and-paste dozens of gun-fondling columns, launch personal attacks, make irrelevant slippert-slope analogies, and otherwise screech about the “insanity” of any attempt to discuss the gun issue whatsoever… well, their junkie status is pretty obvious.”

Brian… you obviously have an opportunity to reply to any post on the topic. You can offer refutation, you can offer what you view as facts, you can even offer personal stories.

But you don’t.

You whine and moan and complain about those who do offer facts and personal observations but you choose not to engage other than your whining and moaning.

When you have something of value to offer please do. But to this point you’ve gone a long way towards persuading those in the middle of the road that your side has nothing.

From my heart I thank you, you’re just the type of person that we need posting on this topic to show the differences between the dynamics of our philosopy and intellectual bankruptcy of yours.

Keep up the good job.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

“If they have read the Constitution the right to bear arms is not as black and white as it would seem.”

Harvard’s Laurence Tribe says, “The 14th Amendment, which makes parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, reflected a broad agreement that bearing arms was a ‘privilege’ of each citizen.” Fellow Harvard liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz agrees, and scolds fellow liberals for twisting the words of the Second Amendment in a way that could come back to haunt them. “Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard,” said Dershowitz, “don’t see the danger of the big picture.” He added, “They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=118

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

At the risk of further enraging Brian, please allow me the vanity of quoting myself… you can find the entirity of the passages in a previous post at http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/norcrosstalk/entries/2007/02/04/aregunstoo_ac.html#comment-981975

In speaking of assault weapons I say…

“Those who talk about “machine guns” blasting away at rabbits or deer are either highly ignorant of the subject or just doing it to demagogue the discussion.”

and I further say…

“And, by the way, it does make a perfectly fine hunting gun if used on the right game. Many people think rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge are the absolute best for hunting varmints such as coyotes, and it’s even popular for some small types of deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only fifty yards or so.”

Now… a few posts later we have a “Bruce” who posts that he owns guns, and knows guns but yet he’s writing…

“As far a rifles, if you need an assault weapon to attack a deer, its not hunting or you must be one lousey shot.”

I’m not going to jump to any conclusions about whether or not he actually does own guns, or even knows which end of the gun the bullet comes out from, but I can state by the testimony of his own words that he certainly doesn’t know as much as he wants us to believe.

For those who have said that we 2nd Amendment supports don’t support the 1st; we strongly do because it helps to spot the idiots amoung us.

By Tim

February 6, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

You live in a vaccuum. This country was made, and is preserved, both internally and extranally, on guns.

If you are younger than 10 years old, I’ll excuse your idyllic dreams as just ignorant, liberal brainwashing.

If you are post-pubescent, you need to have someone slap you VERY hard in the face and wake up to the fact that guns are what made and MAKES America great.

Try and un-do the brainwashing; it’s really your only chance.

By diJon

February 6, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

instead of trying to change the minds of a couple million people, wouldn’t it be easier, and more comfortable for you to move to a country that has already banned firearms?

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Nice try jack, the section I am speaking of has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Do as I suggested and read the Constitution, seek and you shall find.

Btw…it has nothing to do with changing the Constitution, it is already in there.

By Mindy

February 6, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

The problem is licensing/Registration is it not a safety issue, it is a means to control and confiscate at a later time. It is simply a step towards the goal of banning weapons.

Examples, just t mention a few, UK, Australia, Kalfornia, Katrina folks, Philippians’, and it goes on and on.

I’m here in the people’s republic of Kalfornia, where the Attorney General can make you a felon just by penciling out a memo. No Due process, no law maker getting involved, just the whim of the AG.

California has gone so far as to threaten companies outside the state with legal action, to turn over there client lists that reside in the state of California. I have personally received three letters from companies I deal with that have been “Requested” to turn over client lists. All three have refused to do so and have subsequently destroyed all records of purchases of non-controlled products. IE: parts and accessories, not covered by the ATF rules.

By JD

February 6, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

The writer of this moronic screed is exactly the kind of brainless sycophant that Lenin deemed a “Useful Idiot”. Perhaps he should see a mental health professional to help him with his irrational phobias. In the meantime, I’ll continue to exercise my Constitional rights without his permission. I saved myself from a criminal attack with a gun - I wouldn’t even be here if I hadn’t been lawfully carrying.

By Mike

February 6, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

Hey Woody, why don’t you move to Washington, DC? They’ve banned guns, there, just like you want. Like Mayor Barry used to say, aside from all the murders it’s a pretty nice place to live.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

“Nice try jack, the section I am speaking of has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Do as I suggested and read the Constitution, seek and you shall find.”

Take it up with Tribe and Dershowitz. They are two of the leading Constitutional experts in the nation and they disagree with you.

I’ve given sources and you’ve given bupkis. Let the readers decide.

By Lazamataz

February 6, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

I agree that you should not own guns.

However, if you believe this so strongly, I advise that you place, on your lawn — in big bold letters — this sign:

WE ARE ANTI-GUN. THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSEHOLD. WHEN WE ARE THREATENED, WE CALL 911 AND PRAY.

I imagine you will get a little more attention by the criminal element — many of them armed only with knives and clubs.

And, unfortunately, you’d end up just about as dead.

To summarize: Guns scare you so I cannot have one? Ha. I keep you safer by keeping the criminal element guessing.

By Mile66

February 6, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

And who exactly is going to “Not allow” me to have guns at home? Who’s going to take my guns and destroy them? I would like to know.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

Too bad you can not think or reason for yourself jack. After reading the insults aimed at anyone that can offer a common sense and constitutional approach on the subject it scares me that the NRA junkies are even allowed to process butter knives.

If you are all that upset about what you imagine a right being taken away, pay attention what this government has already done to your civil liberties.

By Brian Curtis

February 6, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

I like to read Woody’s column. In fact, I’d like to see it. I just love the name Woody.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 01:02 PM | Link to this

Btw jack Tribe and Dershowitz do not disagree with me, they did not even address the section of the Constitution I was refering to.

By IStateFacts

February 6, 2007 01:18 PM | Link to this

A gun, kitchen knife, rope and a clothes hanger are just as we call them, if you placed all of them in your closet, it will NEVER cause harm to anyone - that is a FACT, because they are inaminate objects. It only could cause harm if a PERSON makes the decision to use it improperly, that is the person’s decision to use those objects like that, not the objects.

Gun can be used by a PERSON to shoot someone else or themselves, because they are not trained or lack the understanding on how a gun is used or they are a criminal or for protection from the criminal. Children can be harmed or killed due to someone’s lack of responsility, not the gun - that is a FACT. (Sorry, you are the stupid one if you leave a loaded gun on top of your end table in the living room and your kid gets it and plays with it and ends up shooting themself or a friend… again, a FACT.)

Kitchen knives are used when preparing food or cutting a tough object by a PERSON, if untrained or lack knowledge they can harm themselves - but it can also be used by a PERSON to hurt or kill another person or used as protection.

Rope can be used by a PERSON to hurt or kill another or to harm yourself. It can also be useful, in tying up the criminal who just tried to harm you. Also, it can be useful when tying up something you don’t want to loose while driving down the highway.

A clothes hanger can be used by a PERSON to hurt of kill another or to harm yourself. If used properly, is used to hang clothes on.

I can list more things that are in most peoples homes that can kill or harm you when used against you by another person (or yourself), but that list would be VERY long. I wouldn’t want to lead someone to want to sue every manufacture in the world either…or ban everything we have.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 01:22 PM | Link to this

“Too bad you can not think or reason for yourself jack. “

I’m content to match the value found in my posts against yours.

But I notice that like Brian, you offer nothing in exchange. Not a fact, not a single word in defense of your postion. Just whining and moaning.

Eventually the readers catch on.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this

“Btw jack Tribe and Dershowitz do not disagree with me, they did not even address the section of the Constitution I was refering to.”

Is this in some super-secret section of the Constitution that only a select few know about and Bruce is under a geas not to talk about until someone plays “three guesses” with him.

Is it something like that hidden map drawn on the back of the Declaration of Independence and the guy with the flaming skull and motorcycle has to reveal it to the world by stealing the document?

Why have a Supreme Court when Bruce can pull previously unknown stuff out of his Constitutional wahzoo to spring on unsuspecting Americans.

Stand and deliver, Bruce.

Put up or shut up.

Fish or cut bait.

Crap or get off the pot.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

Do some research jack like reading the Constitution instead of misquoting it or letting someone else define such a simple document for you.

This is not a game jack, it is knowing the Constitution, it is an exercise to show that you know very little of what is in the Constitution.

I am enjoying myself by exposing you as nothing but a parrot.

In due time I will reveal the part of the Constitution you must have never seen, and I’ll toss you a cracker.

By C. Heston

February 6, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

It’s not a huge secret that most people that are for banning guns, or anything else for that matter, typically have problems with their own self-control. Since they can’t control themselves with a gun, no one else can. That type of hubris is the foundation we call modern liberalism.

Thanks and God Bless America!

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this

“Do some research jack”

Just as I forecast, and as now everyone realizes…

Bruce is quite unable to:

Stand and deliver.

Put up or shut up.

Fish or cut bait.

Crap or get off the pot.

But he’s really, really good at blaming others. :-)

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

Okay jack here is your cracker, Article 1, Section 8, -16., now go and find someone that can explain it for you.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this

“Article 1, Section 8, -16”

Well, that was pretty much of an intellectual vacumm. Might have well quoted “ting tang, walla walla bing bang” for all that added to any on the point discussion. Now we know that the Congress had the power to provide certain regulation to the militia.

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 12-16, provides Congress with the power:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

What does this have to do with the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms? Nada.

Here’s a couple of good resources for those who would like to follow up on this issue.

http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primeronconst.php [excellent]

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Dt-JiLKjRYYJ:www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-18.pdf+constitution+section+8+right+to+keep+bear+arms&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us [another excellent source]

By Megan

February 6, 2007 02:53 PM | Link to this

Just don’t ask any kid from a public school - they will just tell you what agenda the school has feed them on the subject. You also be lucky that the kid knows what the Constitution is….or even luckier if they actually read and understood it (without someone telling them what they “think” it all means). Too many people have been brainwashed on what some “think” the Constitution is and what it contains and act like they know it all when they haven’t even read it.

By Brian Curtis

February 6, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

Jacko, I’m not whining and complaining… I’m just laughing at you. As soon as the “gun” issue is raised, the gun nuts come squealinig and hollerinig from all directions, cutting and pasting like mad and snarling that anyone who even brings UP the topic is an obvious fascist moron.

It’s entertaining as all get-out. The fact is, there’s no separate category of criminals who are a constant threat (and yet make rational cost-benefit decisions when deciding whose home to break into). The majority of violent crimes are committed by ordinary people who screw up, get drunk, or lose their tempers. And putting guns in their hands doesn’t make them OR their families any safer… it just provides the illusion of safety from a mythical “criminal intruder.”

Kinda like an SUV, actually. It’s less safe than a station wagon or minivan, but the morons keep buying ‘em because they FEEL safer in one.

By NB

February 6, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

I will admit I am scared to death of curling irons - severely scared, even though I have never been hurt by one. I about have a panic attack whenever someone tries to use one on my hair. Laugh if you want… I don’t care. I understand it is a silly fear. But it is still a fear I have, just as you may fear something that someone else my consider “silly”.

Can a hot curling iron hurt me just sitting there? No, Of course not, that would be impossible. A hot curling iron could only hurt me or kill me due to another using it in that manner (if the hot curling iron burns down the house, it is because someone didn’t turn it off or prop it properly - pretty much, it is someones fault for not taking care of the hot curling iron. The hot curling iron didn’t decide one day that today was the day to burn down your house, someone’s irresponsiblity caused it all to happen.). Am I going to go around wanting it to be banned? No. Why? Because a majority people don’t fear it, even those who have been even burned pretty bad by it (remember the days of the big bangs which often hid those horrible burn marks on the forehead). I don’t care if people want one, it is their business. The same thing with guns. Just take out the words hot curling iron and replace it with gun, the only thing is that I am just not afraid of a gun in the same way (afraid of a hot curling iron, yes).

By Matt

February 6, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

Kinda like an SUV, actually. It’s less safe than a station wagon or minivan, but the morons keep buying ‘em because they FEEL safer in one.

I would argue the anti-gun position is far more appropriate for that analogy. Legislating away the right of citizens to keep and bear arms creates a society that is LESS safe and MORE dependent on the government (since only law-abiding, honest citizens will be obeying gun control legislation). However, it seems to make elitist, hyperintellectuals who are confident they “know what’s best” for everyone FEEL safer.

My right to own a gun supercedes anyone else’s “right” to “feel safe”.

Unless I’m using guns to initiate harm against someone else, it’s none of the government’s (or anyone else’s) business what kind of guns they are, where I got them, how many I have, or why I have them.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

It is very simple jack, the right to bear arms has always been strictly controled.

The fact that the powers to control arming, organizing the milita is given to the states proves the point. The states jack will and always have decided who will have the right to bear arms, not the feds.

If you think I am wrong jack explain why each state has it’s own rules about who can or cannot bear arms? Or if it is indeed the feds that control that right why don’t we have only a federal permit or no permits at all.

To the person that wrote the Founding Fathers wanted the people to be armed to keep them under control, in so many words is funny. A group of guys ready to revolt against England saying “Yup, give the people guns for they can revolt against us next”. They were politicians, not idiots.

And jack there is no need to misquote me, it makes you not only weak, but sneaky. your words, “Now… a few posts later we have a “Bruce” who posts that he owns guns, and knows guns but yet he’s writing…“As far a rifles, if you need an assault weapon to attack a deer, its not hunting or you must be one lousey shot.”

My words, “At the VERY least a pistol permit should be needed to purchase a handgun. It is not very hard, a form, an FBI check, fingerprints and the cost to me I believe was about $45.00 dollars. I would like to see a basic course on the laws, proper handling, safety, but most importantly safe storage.

This only applies to handguns, no registration and according to our federal Constitution does not infringe on the Second Amendment.

As far a rifles, if you need an assault weapon to attack a deer, its not hunting or you must be one lousey shot.

Enforce the federal law, carry a handgun without a permit it is an automatic five years.”

See jack, a little misquote on your part, no need to apologize, just try to be a little more honest.

By Matt

February 6, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

As far a rifles, if you need an assault weapon to attack a deer, its not hunting or you must be one lousey shot.

The oft-villified “assault rifle” uses ammunition that is smaller and discharged at a lower velocity than conventional, politically correct-looking rifles. No responsible hunter would use an “assault weapon” to hunt large game, as it is unlikely the shot would kill a large animal quickly and humanely.

This trite, overused argument is obviously intended to “prove” to people that “assault weapons” grant the shooter an extreme advantage in firepower and thus have no sporting purpose (and thus have no reason to exist).

Those of us who know about firearms can just chuckle and shake our heads in exasperation upon hearing people who are clearly ignorant of the topic confidently assert that we “don’t need” a certain type of gun based upon an erroneous assumption.

Furthermore, the Second Amendment was not written as a courtesy to hunters. A weapon’s suitability for hunting and/or sport is irrelevant.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 03:42 PM | Link to this

Thanks Matt for endorsing my statement.

By DJB

February 6, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this

A few comments, based on my 18 years in California law enforcement (pls excuse me if some of my thoughts were also mentioned earlier)…

If you’re so fearful of firearms, I’d suggest that you NOT call the police if you’re a victim of a crime (since the police carry firearms), and post a sign in your front yard stating “this is a gun-free house”). Yes, I know this was noted earlier.

Until you have read the volumes of data involving firearms (while examining the biases, if any, of the issuing group), then I suggest you learn more about the whole situation before posting an obviously one-sided opinion that appears to be the script from the anti-gun zealots.

Educate yourself - don’t just take your news from the 10-second sound bites on TV. that’s what the politicians depend on - an uninformed public who will listen to what they WANT to hear. It’s too easy to gget caught up in the emotionalism of the moment - hey, bad news sells news!!!! When was the last time you saw a news show (or paper) come out with NO bad news???

Finally - probably the biggest problem is the failure of parents to instill responsibility and accountability in their children. I have seen too many cases of parents telling me “my child didn’t steal xxxx or hurt yyyy… we’ve given them everything they’ve ever wanted!”

…except love and discipline as they were growing up. The parents were too busy buying their toys to impress others, rather than realizing what they were ignoring.

Sorry for the long discussion, but it pains me no end to see uninformed people make (or force) choices when they do NOT have a clear understanding of ALL of the facts. That goes for the individuals of this country AND the politicians.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

///Jacko, I’m not whining and complaining… I’m just laughing at you. As soon as the “gun” issue is raised, the gun nuts come squealinig and hollerinig from all directions, cutting and pasting like mad and snarling that anyone who even brings UP the topic is an obvious fascist moron.///

It’s fascinating how you get soooo peeved over 30 year old computer technology such as cutting and pasting. This is like the fifth time that you mentioned it. Does Bolding and Italicizing traumatize you also?

And, as a reminder from Sen. Goldwater, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

///It’s entertaining as all get-out. The fact is, there’s no separate category of criminals who are a constant threat (and yet make rational cost-benefit decisions when deciding whose home to break into).///

I’m so glad you know the criminal mind so well. Makes one wonder how you learned the ins and outs. But you’re wrong. And that’s why so many of the states have effected the three strikes rule == they are quite aware that there are career criminals out there who, if gotten off the streets, will dramatically decrease the crime rate far out of proportion to their numbers.

Here’s something to chew on:

“About a third of all violent crime arrestees are on probation, parole, or pretrial release at the time of their arrest. Recent studies by me and others estimate that most prisoners commit between 12 and 21 serious crimes a year when on the loose. “

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3563752.html

///The majority of violent crimes are committed by ordinary people who screw up, get drunk, or lose their tempers. And putting guns in their hands doesn’t make them OR their families any safer… it just provides the illusion of safety from a mythical “criminal intruder.///

Let’s try it this way… see if it makes as much sense: The majority of violent rapes are committed by ordinary people who screw up, get drunk, or lose their tempers. Therefore let’s emasculate any male over 13 to prevent all future rapes.

///And putting guns in their hands doesn’t make them OR their families any safer… it just provides the illusion of safety from a mythical “criminal intruder.///

Sometimes this is just too darn easy. Like beating up on a third grader… but someone has to keep those rotten kids in line. Okay, readers, you can believe our poster here, or you can go to:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

and read story after story after story about ordinary families just like you and I getting much more than the illusion of safety from mythical criminal intruders. Each story is documented and you’re free to follow up as much as you want.

There comes a certain point where credibility starts to dribble away pretty fast… I think our poster has passed that point for most of us.

By elle

February 6, 2007 04:01 PM | Link to this

To Colonel Kilgore, who said: “If the smell of gunpowder isn’t something you love, then, Woody old sport, your masculinity is in question. And, given that geeky photo of you, no surprise that you are a fat, geeky girly-man.”

You are a f*&cking idiot…probably the same kind of person who votes for idiots like GW Bush, who can’t even deliver a speech that’s gramatically correct. Our society, and especially GA, is unfortunately dominated by rednecks who often use red herrings to answer serioius societal issues.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 04:11 PM | Link to this

///It is very simple jack, the right to bear arms has always been strictly controled. The fact that the powers to control arming, organizing the milita is given to the states proves the point. The states jack will and always have decided who will have the right to bear arms, not the feds.///

Bruce… there’s a vast difference between when someone is acting as a member of the called-out militia and when someone is acting as a civilian citizen. Yes, when I was a member of the military (which is not the militia by the way) I expected the government to arm me. If the government actually calls out the militia then I also expect them to provide a certain amount of arming. My budget only goes so far for ammo and prices have been rising.

But you’re confusing the powers of the states with regard to the militia with the right of the people. It’s not the same. And never has been.

///If you think I am wrong jack explain why each state has it’s own rules about who can or cannot bear arms? Or if it is indeed the feds that control that right why don’t we have only a federal permit or no permits at all.///

Well, because the state and Federal governments are screwed up? Like that’s a surprise.

///And jack there is no need to misquote me, it makes you not only weak, but sneaky. your words, ///

And specifically, where did I misquote you? I truncated your quote to get rid of the stuff that was not germane to the issue of hunting with assault rifles, and keep the quote that I did use exactly as you put it down, in the context you used.

Did I mislead anyone about what you wrote? No

Did I change the meaning of your quote? No

Did I change the wording of your quote? No

Did I make a fool out of you? Yes.

And that’s the problem that you’re having. Otherwise, again, put up or shut up and point out to the world exactly where and how I misquoted you on the subject of hunting with assault rifles.

By glock

February 6, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this

Woody, going back one of your original comments about guns needing to be banned and completely destroyed… Lets think about this for a second.

Other than Law enforcement 2 types of people currently have guns; law abiding citizens and criminals.
If the gov’t were to attempt to take away guns, who would be giving them up? Most of the law abiding citizens would. Do you really think the criminals would give there guns up? Of course not! Then we would have a huge problem on our hands. The criminals would still have guns and know that hardly anyone else had them available to defend themselves with. What do you think would happen to the crime rate then?

The problem lies in the hands of criminals. We need stiffer laws to put them away so they can’t continue to harm people.

Woody, since you’re obviously not a gun owner…

How would you protect your family in the even of a home invasion by a criminal armed w/ a gun? What about a carjacking? Would you rely on the police to protect you? How long does it take to pull out your cell phone and call them, or for them to show up?

It only takes a few seconds for someone to open your car door and put a gun in your face! Then you have to rely on them NOT to pull the trigger! Me personally, I’d rather be prepared!

I hope your not ever in a situation like that, but if you were, I’ll bet you’d change your mind.

I sure did once I was a victim.

By armed and ready to protect myself!

February 6, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this

Woody, going back one of your original comments about guns needing to be banned and completely destroyed… Lets think about this for a second.

Other than Law enforcement 2 types of people currently have guns; law abiding citizens and criminals.
If the gov’t were to attempt to take away guns, who would be giving them up? Most of the law abiding citizens would. Do you really think the criminals would give there guns up? Of course not! Then we would have a huge problem on our hands. The criminals would still have guns and know that hardly anyone else had them available to defend themselves with. What do you think would happen to the crime rate then?

The problem lies in the hands of criminals. We need stiffer laws to put them away so they can’t continue to harm people.

Woody, since you’re obviously not a gun owner…

How would you protect your family in the even of a home invasion by a criminal armed w/ a gun? What about a carjacking? Would you rely on the police to protect you? How long does it take to pull out your cell phone and call them, or for them to show up?

It only takes a few seconds for someone to open your car door and put a gun in your face! Then you have to rely on them NOT to pull the trigger! Me personally, I’d rather be prepared!

I hope your not ever in a situation like that, but if you were, I’ll bet you’d change your mind.

I sure did once I was a victim.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 05:39 PM | Link to this

Matt Says:

///No responsible hunter would use an “assault weapon” to hunt large game, as it is unlikely the shot would kill a large animal quickly and humanely.///

Bruce, thinking that Matt has done him a favor, responds by posting:

///Thanks Matt for endorsing my statement.///

Now, ol’ Jack, standing back and taking a look, knows that Bruce has again kneecapped himself and not even realized it.

Matt is specifically talking about the size and strength of the bullet used in most sports utility rifles, also known by the media and gun-haters as assault rifles. The bullet is small and underpowered. That’s why it should not be used on “large” game (remember that large, it will come in handy later.)

So, if Matt is right about the bullet being underpowered, why is Bruce so happy about that. It completely undercuts the argument that the gun is so powerful that the only use for it is on the battlefield… that it’s a weapon designed only for “mankilling”. Man, BTW, is on the far side of “large sized animals.”

So is the gun so weak and powerless that it makes it a bad weapon to effectively shoot large animals like a man, or is it a devastating weapon of mass destruction that kills people like fleas?

Can’t be both and be logical.

Remember that “large”? Animals like elk, moose, man, mule deer, and others are tough to bring down with a .223, especially at ranges of 200 yards or more where it can be difficult to place a shot exactly where it’s needed. No responsible person would do it at 200 yards and it shouldn’t even be attempted at 100 yards.

But looking back at what I posted what did I say?

“even popular for some ~small~ types of deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only fifty yards or so”

Completely different, eh? And while I am not a good enough shot even at 50 yards to take a small forest deer with that caliber I know plenty of people who do, and do it humanely and well.

That’s why it’s always good to remember apples and apples when posting about things that people can go back and read.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 05:39 PM | Link to this

”///If you think I am wrong jack explain why each state has it’s own rules about who can or cannot bear arms? Or if it is indeed the feds that control that right why don’t we have only a federal permit or no permits at all.///

Well, because the state and Federal governments are screwed up? Like that’s a surprise.”

Oh come on jack, that’s the best you can do? You need something a lot better than that to justify your position. Like I have said all along the rules, controls, what have you have always been there if you only look for them. I stand by my statement that the states have always had control over who has the right to bear arms in their respective states as stated in the Constitution. The governments screwed up just doesn’t cut it jack.

And as far as misquoting me, it’s yes, yes, yes and know.

jack want a cracker?

By Matt

February 6, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this

Jack, thank you for posting the clarification. I was on the verge of losing my patience with this commentary and wasn’t going to bother, but you understood my initial intention.

“Assault rifles” fire a smaller projectile at a slower velocity than “normal” rifles. This means that a large target (be it a man, moose, or what have you) cannot typically be dispatched with a single shot at any amount of distance.

My point was that these rifles are always demonized by people as being weapons of war with enormous destructive capabilities, and that they aren’t appropriate to use for hunting because they give the hunter the unfair ability to simply spray the woods with gunfire and mow down everything in his path. That is simply not the case.

By DMan

February 6, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this

I agree completely, all guns should be destroyed. Let’s start with the U. S Government and the British too. Than all the U. N. Nations and all the Middle East nations too. Everyone everywhere, destroy them. Then the books, all of them everywhere. Then Television, computers, internet, indoor plumbing, Air Conditioning/Heating. Nukular weapons, planes trains and automobiles.

We would be a much better planet.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 06:08 PM | Link to this

////The governments screwed up just doesn’t cut it jack.///

Okay, Bruce, the governments never screw up and do things wrong or unconstitutional. You win. [snicker]

///And as far as misquoting me, it’s yes, yes, yes and know.///

Saying I misquoted you and proving it are two differing things, Bruce. So far you have only accused but not shown a thing to back up your accusation. The post you quoted yourself from and the post you quoted me quoting you are identical in the germane part.

And that’s just embarrassing when the readers can go back and read all the posts for themselves. Are you not ever worried about your shrinking credibility?

It should be as easy as pie to show where I misquoted you. Give the exact sentence you wrote, and show how what I posted varies. Or give the actual sense of what you meant for a point, and how I twisted it to mean something else. If your post stated that you wear boxers and I manipulated it into saying that you really wear thong panties, show us where and how it happened.

It’s that easy. Of course, you may have to exercise the dreaded cut and paste option which will get your running buddy Brian all upset, but eggs must be broken in every revolution.

By Dan Fielding

February 6, 2007 06:25 PM | Link to this

Jack: Thanks for the gun-fondler’s favorite distraction, anecdotal evidence. Which, of course, proves nothing. And you’ve already conceded with your one-third statistic that the majority of violent crimes are NOT committed by the hardcore “criminal element.”

Glock, your mistake is similar… assuming that there are two distinct categories of “law-abiding citizens” and “criminals.” In fact, there IS no distinction. And regulation is not the same as calling for an outright ban on all guns—a fact that not even the NRA denies when pressed (i.e., whenever they’re not sending out scary propaganda).

This is getting more entertaining by the hour! Keep up the good work, gun-strokers! Col. Kilgore has already set the bar on how sane and sensible you sound.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 06:33 PM | Link to this

Matt Posted:

///Jack, thank you for posting the clarification. I was on the verge of losing my patience with this commentary and wasn’t going to bother, but you understood my initial intention.///

There’s a lot of middle of the road folk who read these topics, Matt. I slog through the mud and muck for them, hoping to show that there is an alternative to the lies and bigotry that the media shows them.

The true-believers such as Brian and Bruce are not my concern and I never really direct my posts towards them. They have to deal with their fantasy world as best they can by themselves.

But by using them as comic relief and foils I can show the fencesitters that there is much more to the issue of gun control than they might know. You build a chink here and there, and pretty soon the attempted arguments rapidly breakdown into posturing and screaming about how life is unfair.

It’s worked well, over the years I’ve had hundreds of folk tell me that it was on boards just like this that they began to realize they had been setup for a false conclusion about guns. But the truth wins eventually if we have the willingness to let the crap slide off from us and stay the course.

Folk like the two BB’s are really my best help. Without them I don’t have the abililty to show the fencesitters how the stink of losing arguments can really smell the place up. And no one wants to be associated with losers, even on a topic board.

The best part of all is that they just can’t help themselves. Rational, logical argument is beyond them and the bitterness they show is just not really appealing. But they can’t change. They are constantly going to give “facts” that are easy to refute and make statements such as “mythical” criminal intruders when viturally everyone out there knows someone who has been victimized.

Nothing makes a convert to our side faster than when someone makes a remark about those mythical criminals and I can then use it to point the reader to the Cramer blog with thousands of stories about how ordinary citizens defended themselves with guns.

It really opens their eyes.

So keep slogging, don’t let them grind you down with their tediousness, and together you and the other good folk here will present a community that is attractive and interesting.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 06:58 PM | Link to this

///Thanks for the gun-fondler’s favorite distraction, anecdotal evidence. Which, of course, proves nothing. And you’ve already conceded with your one-third statistic that the majority of violent crimes are NOT committed by the hardcore “criminal element.”///

Which anecdotal evidence are you speaking of. The multiple stories where children with guns saved the lives of their families. That proves quite a bit to those families, eh? What other anecdotal evidence are you speaking of. Be frank. Go ahead make our day by point out what you don’t like.

But be specific so we can be the judge of what, if anything, if proves.

Would you like to challenge my anecdotal story of how a gun saved my life? That proved quite a bit to me since I’m here to post about it.

And your feeble attempt at statistical analysis needs a hand. The quote says:

“About a third of all violent crime arrestees are on probation, parole, or pretrial release at the time of their arrest. Recent studies by me and others estimate that most prisoners commit between 12 and 21 serious crimes a year when on the loose. “

Now, Mr. Statistics, just what part of the other two thirds do you know absolute information about?

Do you know if they are criminals that have been released from the system and are therefore no longer on probation or parole? No, you don’t, do you.

Do you know if they have been involved in such petty nusiance crimes that they have not yet graduated to the “cuff them and take them in” status? No, you don’t, do you.

Do you know if they are criminals that have committed multiple crimes but have not yet entered the system thru being caught? No, you don’t, do you.

Do you know if they have just graduated from criminal juvie status to adult and therefore have no criminal record to speak of? No, you don’t, do you.

Actually, you don’t know anything about those other two thirds, do you? Nothing. So speaking of them, who they are, and what they do is pretty much an exercise of vanity on your part, isn’t it?

But you want to talk “evidence.”

///Glock, your mistake is similar… assuming that there are two distinct categories of “law-abiding citizens” and “criminals.” In fact, there IS no distinction.///

Okay, folk, there’s the mind of the gun-bigot. He sees NO difference between you, your wife, your husband, your mother, your father, your neighbor, your co-woker, and the most hardened criminal. You are all the same in his mind. No wonder he thinks you shouldn’t have a gun.

But do you feel that way about yourself? Your mother?

///And regulation is not the same as calling for an outright ban on all guns—a fact that not even the NRA denies when pressed (i.e., whenever they’re not sending out scary propaganda).///

But it is a good first step… such as when California first required registrations of .50 BMG and then later used this very list to ensure that after then banned them there was no more left in the state.

///This is getting more entertaining by the hour! Keep up the good work, gun-strokers! ///

Poor Dan… it’s really tough trying to be a man when he knows that, if confronted by a badguy, his wife would much rather have someone like me with her than him, her own husband. I mean, what’s he going to do, push her down to give himself a running start while Mr. Goblin stays behind to sample the delights? :-)

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 07:20 PM | Link to this

There is a place that thinks just like you do. England. Move there.

By Matthew

February 6, 2007 07:45 PM | Link to this

Unless you can figure out a way to regulate fireams and make them more difficult for criminals to get, forget about it. All you will do is further restrict the rights of those who seek to protect outselves from that element. You can sell guns at one central location in the state, surrounded by barbed wire, armed guards and allow only one person in an hour and criminals will STILL get guns. Look at Great Britain. If you want to legally get a gun, it’s near impossible. If you want to ILLEGALLY get a gun, it’s as simple as following the drugs.

Accidents will happen. It’s tragic. People fall and die in the bathtub daily… should we make bathtubs more difficult to get? I’m sure guns are somehow more deadly than bathtubs or cars though, right? Knives are easy to get… lets get rid of them. Fists are used a lot more often than guns… maybe we should regulate those?

What we NEED to do is focus on those committing the crimes. Stop blaming the instrument and start blaming the person. Stop making excuses that regulate posession of the element that is USED to kill… Sure, a criminal will now get sympathy because his gun was “so easy to get”. Hogwash. Stop plea-bargaining with and paroling violent offenders. Keep violent people in jail and surprise… the problems will likely go away. Of course, it’s a lot easier to get rid of guns isn’t it?

By Luke

February 6, 2007 07:55 PM | Link to this

Well the fact is you can not change history; and firearms are a part of this world…criminals will not turn their weapons over the govn’t in the event there ever was to be gun control ban.

I will value my 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and protect my family and myself. I will not be a victim to a crime against my family or myself. You can put your life in the hands of the Govn’t hope they protect you; and i will wish you good luck and hope nothing ever happens but that is not a risk im willing to take for myself. This type of liberal attitude is what is going to and is in the process of destroying America and everything this country stands for.

By Sevesteen

February 6, 2007 08:24 PM | Link to this

Woody: It is refreshing to have someone disagree with the second amendment rather than try to claim it means something else. While I disagree with your position I find your views far more honest and honorable than most anti-gun arguments.

I carry a gun where it is legal and not too inconvenient. Yes, it is a lot of power and responsibility, but in truth, it barely affects me. I’m not a criminal, so my gun is not used to settle arguments or get my way. I hope carrying a gun doesn’t “make you a man”, because my wife carries too… When I’m out in public with my gun, it is a last-ditch tool to escape violence, and nothing else. If anything, it means I need to avoid arguments and maintain a low profile—If I ever have to use it, I better be 110% in the right with no other options.

When we got our guns it was primarily because of my wife’s job which took someone from her office to each and every home and crackhouse in the city. She’s 5’2”, and often walks with a cane. Even if all guns were outlawed, there’d still be knives, rocks, and gangs of violent people, and she’d have little chance of escape. Non-lethal weapons are far less effective, and in many circumstances affect the user as much as the attacker.

The reason you see so much anger is that there have been tremendous lies about the goals of the gun control movement—“sensible gun laws” includes a ban on “assualt weapons” as others have mentioned, plus things like:

Ballistic Fingerprinting—Maryland has spent millions, has yet to solve a crime. Easily defeated, costs passed on to gun owners. Essentially gun registration by another name.

“Saturday Night Specials”—Keeps affordable guns away from poor (minority) people. The federal law only applies to imported guns, was supported by US makers.

Ammo serialization: Will increase the price of 9mm ammo by at least 25%, will double or more the cost of .22 ammo. Will probably outlaw cheap military surplus ammo. With nothing more than basic garage tools I could turn scrap lumber, wood screws and sandpaper into a tool to remove serial numbers that any idiot could use. The first one would probably take about 90 minutes, after that about 15 minutes each.

All of these are proposed as crime-fighting measures, but affect the law-abiding far more than criminals. In reality, these are designed to make gun ownership expensive and unpleasant.

To see how ‘sensible’ the se laws are:

The original design of many Glock handguns would be considered a Saturday Night Special. Most of these have trivial features added to allow them to score just over the threshold and be legally imported—In some cases, it was necessary to add cheap plastic adjustable sights which were (legally) replaced with the original versions before sale-Essentially turning them back into Saturday Night Specials. Until recently, the original configuration was also restricted by the assault weapons ban, unless sold with a lower capacity magazine. Thus, the same gun was both an assault weapon and a Saturday Night Special at the same time.

By lynn

February 6, 2007 08:38 PM | Link to this

Keep up the good work Jack, you are doing great. Brian and Bruce are probably just junior high students that were trolling this site for laughs. They are now getting a taste of what its like to be laughed at!

By lynn

February 6, 2007 08:39 PM | Link to this

Keep up the good work Jack, you are doing great. Brian and Bruce are probably just junior high students that were trolling this site for laughs. They are now getting a taste of what its like to be laughed at!

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 08:41 PM | Link to this

Hey jack, you’re right I was correct on the Constitution, thanks for finally admitting it.

Your attempt to say you did not misquote me goes about as far as your knowledge of the Constitution.

It has been fun jack, but the next time to try to bully or intimidate others on a subject at least do a little research yourself and stop relying on quotes from others, it would give you some credibility.

As far as my credibility jack, well I certainly destroyed you on the subject and gave you every opportunity to research the Constitution yourself, either you were too lazy or just never bothered to read the fine print so to speak.

No one will ever or within the next fifty years take away the right to bear arms, the states may place on stricter controls, but that is about it. Be more worried about the civil liberties this administration has already stolen from you.

jack want a cracker, snicker, snicker.

By lynn

February 6, 2007 08:57 PM | Link to this

Hey Bruce, Jack has you beaten hands down. The only thing that you are proving is that you are a buffoon

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 08:59 PM | Link to this

”///If you think I am wrong jack explain why each state has it’s own rules about who can or cannot bear arms? Or if it is indeed the feds that control that right why don’t we have only a federal permit or no permits at all.///

Well, because the state and Federal governments are screwed up? Like that’s a surprise.”

The above was jacks answer to Article I, Section 8, -16 of the Constitution. Lynn I wish I were back in junior high, but I am retired, it’s just I do not like bullies that misquote the Constitution or never studied it like jack.

If you bothered to read all my posts in the thread I do have a pistol permit and own a couple of handguns. I also gave some common sense approaches to to the gun issue.

But to the NRA junkies common sense is not a strong point, bs seems to be the weapon of choice in what could have been an intelligent discussion.

By Tony

February 6, 2007 10:01 PM | Link to this

You hate guns, I don’t hate guns. You have failed to make an argument to ban guns. What you have said, is tragic accidents can happen with guns. Yes, thats true, why does that equal banning guns. We have not banned swimming pools, we have not banned cars, we have not banned irresponsible journalists. Swimming pools, cars and bad journalism are responsible for more deaths than guns.

You can look up the swimming pool, and cars statistics and see for yourself that they kill more often than guns. Now for bad journalism, well it is articles like this one that kill accidentally with guns. If you didn’t spread misinformation their would gun education in the schools, on the television, in the home. Instead, we have the demonized gun, and entire generations of children uneducated and in danger.

Children I have influence over have a solid understanding of firearms, they know what they do, how they do it, and how to use them. They won’t be shooting themselves, or anyone else for that matter. As for the children in your sphere of influence, they are a danger to themselves, to you, to everyone. You fears and your opinions are killing children.

By kimberland

February 6, 2007 10:04 PM | Link to this

You are responsible for your self defense, and the defense of your family. If you wish to not accept that responsability, the 911 people will write an excellent report on about your misfortune. That is their job.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 10:18 PM | Link to this

///Hey jack, you’re right I was correct on the Constitution, thanks for finally admitting it. ///

Bruce… earlier I accused you of living in a fantasy… this goes to prove my point. Find where I said anything about you being “right.” Remember, others are watching and reading. Find it. Go ahead. We’re waiting.

///Your attempt to say you did not misquote me goes about as far as your knowledge of the Constitution.///

Ummm…. Bruce, if you want to claim someone misquoted you it is your responsibility to show that actually happened. You haven’t, despite repeated requests. Or is that part of your “knowledge” of the Constitution, that accusations equal guilt?

///It has been fun jack, but the next time to try to bully or intimidate others on a subject at least do a little research yourself and stop relying on quotes from others, it would give you some credibility.///

Gee, I am not adverse to admitting that I am not the total sum of knowledge in the world and therefore I quote from those who know better than I. And this is a bad thing how?

///As far as my credibility jack, well I certainly destroyed you on the subject and gave you every opportunity to research the Constitution yourself, either you were too lazy or just never bothered to read the fine print so to speak.///

I provided some excellent resources for the readers to check out. Are the other posters going to want to read my layman’s opinion or read the works of some of the finest Constitutional scholars in the land providing a detailed but accessible approach to the question. Let’s see, if I have a question about cosmology am I going to turn to Bruce or to Stephen Hawking? That’s a tough question. Bruce just may know as much as Hawking does… or maybe he doesn’t.

///No one will ever or within the next fifty years take away the right to bear arms, the states may place on stricter controls, but that is about it.///

Really? Really? I wonder what the good folk in Washington D.C. and Chicago would have to say about this statement.

///Be more worried about the civil liberties this administration has already stolen from you.///

And if the next or nexter administration steals them all from you, what are your plans. Can’t do much, eh, except roll over and say, “Please can I have some more.” When they come to take you away at least you have the dignity of going out like a sheep instead of a man.

///jack want a cracker, snicker, snicker.///

Was it you or Brian who wanted to talk about OCB? Wait, I think it was Brian. But was he posting about you or Woody? I can’t remember now, it’s been too long.

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 10:26 PM | Link to this

///The above was jacks answer to Article I, Section 8, -16 of the Constitution. Lynn I wish I were back in junior high, but I am retired, it’s just I do not like bullies that misquote the Constitution or never studied it like jack.///

Lynn, Bruce is lying to you. I hate to say something so harsh but it’s true. It’s easy to go back on the thread and read my real answer to Section 8. It’s there waiting for anyone to read it. Bruce has yet to learn that people can actually go back and re-read previous posts.

However, Bruce in a separate post asked another, different question that deals with 50 states each with their own Constitution, dozens of Supreme Court rulings, 200 years of history, and that has occupied some of the finest legal minds for generations yet he wants an answer in a couple of paragraphs.

That was my flippant answer to his obvious flippant question.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 11:36 PM | Link to this

jack, it has nothing, zip, nada to do with state constitutions, so I will say you’re lying and trying to change the debate. The debate was ONLY about the United States Constitution which I correctly content give gun control to the states.

Point, Section 8 was written long before the Bill of Rights that, as you know contain the Second Amendment, the rights to control arms, training and organizing translated over time to gun control was given to the states.

Now I ask again, why does each state have it’s own laws and rules controling the right to bear arms and not the federal government? If the federal government indeed granted everyone the right to bear arms why don’t we have a federal permit or no permit at all?

The whole point is that you have to worry more about how the states control the right to bear arms than you do the federal government.

Stop squirming around the questions or attempt to change the debate, it’s dishonest on your part.

jack I invite anyone to go back and read the thread again, I did lead you along for awhile just for you would dig yourself a deeper hole, which you did, I apologize for that, but you did ask for it.

By Rich S.

February 6, 2007 11:45 PM | Link to this

Some wise folks offered these tidbits about history, the nature of mankind, the right of self-defense, and guns:

“Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would.” —John Adams, 1763

“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers…To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” —George Mason, 1788

“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?” —Patrick Henry, 1788

The great object is, that every man be armed….Every one who is able may have a gun.” —Patrick Henry, 1788

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” —Thomas Jefferson, 1776

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.” —Joseph Story, 1840

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. ” — “Political Disquisitions” a British republican tract of 1774-1775

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” —Noah Webster, 1787

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. […] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” —Hubert Humphrey, 1960

And on the negative side:

”.. a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen… ” — Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

Also, consider what we saw in Louisana in 2005: In one of the most dangerous periods of civil unrest in recent times, agents of the government disarmed law abiding citizens, viloating their constitutionally enumerated rights, via coercion and physical force. For what reason? To protect government agents. And thereby increasing the risk to the citizens they disarmed. That’s who you want to trust for your well being? For your family’s well being?

Woody, be a better student of history. A gun not needed today may be desperately needed tomorrow. For many reasons.

What is the United States? It’s not the president or the congress. It’s not the military. It’s not the flag. It’s not your state senator. It’s you. It’s me. It is the people. Stop shirking the responsibilities (and dangers) that come with being a citizen in a country founded by men who wanted individual liberty to be paramount among all considerations.

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 12:21 AM | Link to this

///jack, it has nothing, zip, nada to do with state constitutions, so I will say you’re lying and trying to change the debate. The debate was ONLY about the United States Constitution which I correctly content give gun control to the states.///

Bruce, it’s a sad sign when you don’t even realize the extent of your own question. You asked about why the states have their own laws. Well, what is the controlling state law other than the state constitution? One has to start there in order to talk about the state laws. If you don’t, then that is akin to talking about the U.S. laws and ignoring the federal constitution.

I am sorry that you didn’t realize that. I assumed you did and I apologize for crediting you with more understanding than you had.

And again, I really don’t want to get into the issue of what 50 states have to say about RKBA.

///Point, Section 8 was written long before the Bill of Rights that, as you know contain the Second Amendment, the rights to control arms, training and organizing translated over time to gun control was given to the states.///

I didn’t realize that the BOR was ratified after the rest of the Constitution. Are you sure about that? Oh, you said “written.” Well, gee Jolly Roger, it really only matters that they were ratified and made the supreme law together, not that one was written days, or weeks before the other. Or even months. To give one section of the Constitution authority over another by date written would certainly mean that the newer Amendments are of lessor value than the previous ones, right? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that novel approach to the Constitution before.

And Bruce, again, the militia and the people are different. Different. Section 8 covers the militia. Only the militia. I do happen to know something about the militia and I certainly know that it is different from ~the people~. If you want to make the argument that the state has control over every single person within it’s borders the same way they have control over the militia then you’re welcome to make it.

////Now I ask again, why does each state have it’s own laws and rules controling the right to bear arms and not the federal government?///

The simple answer is that under our republican form of government the states have many duplicate laws in their own constitutions. Look up the First Amendment sometimes and see how many states have something very similar, and sometimes even stronger, in their own constitution. Lots of First A cases are settled using state law when it is to the advantage of the parties concerned. Not everything is a federal case. That is the way we were set up and is part of an elementary understanding of the nature of a representative republican government. In the same way, quite a number of states have an equivalent of the 2nd A in their constitution.

Actually, that’s how Ohio was able to get CCW recently. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled, based solely upon the Ohio Constitution, that the supreme law of Ohio gave the people the right to carry arms in public without them being concealed. In order to forestall thousands of people walking around with open arms (which the pro-CCW community promised to do) the legislature passed a CCW law allowing the carrying of concealed weapons. There was not a federal component to the case at all, but it certainly changed the way a major state handled the concept of guns.

And who says the federal government doesn’t have it’s own laws controlling the right to bear arms? Are you actually stating that as a fact? If you are then I am assuming that you’ve never heard of the gun control acts of 1934, 1968, and 1986?

/// If the federal government indeed granted everyone the right to bear arms why don’t we have a federal permit or no permit at all?///

Because we have a republican form of government. That’s why we don’t have a national drivers license. Why didn’t you ask about that? We don’t have a national doctors license. Why didn’t you ask about that? We don’t have a national hairdressers license. Why didn’t you ask about that? We don’t have a national marriage license. Why didn’t you ask about that?

And many, many libertarians argue that the state permits are quite unconstitutional and federal permits would be no better. It’s no different in their mind than requiring that journalists have a permit before working. The pro-gun community is not monolithic on that issue; there are many points of view and not all of the agree with one another.

And you do know as a gun owner and permit holder, don’t you, that a bill to create a national CCW permit is working it’s way through Congress even as we speak. Actually, it would not create a national permit, but would give full faith and credit to any state license, the same as a drivers or marriage license is given. Again, there’s a lot of pro-CCW people who are against this bill and would rather not see it pass. But that’s a different story for another time.

///The whole point is that you have to worry more about how the states control the right to bear arms than you do the federal government.////

There are a handful of states that currently outlaw so-called assault rifles. The federal law that outlawed them across the WHOLE country was recently sunsetted and they are now legal again in the 40 or so states that don’t disallow them. Tell me again that the feds don’t have greater power than the states in this regard.

You see, Bruce, when you make statements such as that it just gives all of us who actually know the laws the ability to see though you as a poser. You just can’t hide ignorance forever… sooner or later it pops out for all to see.

///Stop squirming around the questions or attempt to change the debate, it’s dishonest on your part.///

Mr. I-know-misquotes-when-I-see-them-but-I’ll-never-tell-anyone-what-they-are accusing someone else of being dishonest. :-)

///jack I invite anyone to go back and read the thread again, I did lead you along for awhile just for you would dig yourself a deeper hole, which you did, I apologize for that, but you did ask for it.///

I haven’t seen a fantasy fixation this strongly since I watched the Lord of the Rings. Tolkein fantasized a whole new world, and Bruce is fantasizing a whole thread that never took place except in his mind.

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 01:00 AM | Link to this

Bruce… now it’s MY turn to ask a question or two, but I’ll take it easy on you by making it a simple TRUE or FALSE question. You can just cut out the wrong answer and cut/paste the test with what you think is the correct answer so we can see how you do.

There’s no failing grade so give it a try…

It’s reasonable to believe that a punk wakes up one morning, and thinks, “Gee, instead of robbing, raping, sodomizing and killing a young woman, why don’t I turn my $400 gun in for $20 and a pizza and go work at McDonald’s?” [TRUE or FALSE]

That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals. [TRUE or FALSE]

That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn’t really want to shoot you and he’ll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he’ll shoot you if you don’t. [TRUE or FALSE]

That Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, Virginia’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control. [TRUE or FALSE]

That one can sue a store for having a slick floor, falling ceilings, and sharp corners, but if they refuse to let you bring a legally carried gun in and you get shot by a criminal, they aren’t liable for enforcing that rule with others. [TRUE or FALSE]

That there is no right of self defense, but the police are not legally obligated to respond to my cries for help when disarmed, but you can sue them if they take too long to get to a traffic accident. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $25 .22 pocket pistol, and the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $2000 machinegun. [TRUE or FALSE]

That “NYPD Blue” and “Miami Vice” are documentaries. [TRUE or FALSE]

That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you. [TRUE or FALSE]

That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery. [TRUE or FALSE]

That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a neurosurgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the best thing our kids can do to bullies and drug dealers is “just say no,” and fight back, and the best thing we can do to bullies and drug dealers is to give them $50 and wait for them to go away. [TRUE or FALSE]

That it’s outrageous that the Milwaukee police took 45 minutes to respond to reports of Jeffrey Dahmer’s last victim running around naked in the cold, then returned him to his attacker without checking ID, but the best thing a citizen can do in an emergency is dial 911. [TRUE or FALSE]

That private citizens can’t have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can’t have assault rifles, because they are military weapons. [TRUE or FALSE]

That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of Fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the “gun problem.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That the first amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn’t apply to manuals on gun repair. [TRUE or FALSE]

That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands. [TRUE or FALSE]

That with the above, a 90 LB woman attacked by a 300 LB rapist and his 300 LB buddy, has the “right” to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands. [TRUE or FALSE]

That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn’t encourage kids to have sex. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950’s and 1960’s, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order. [TRUE or FALSE]

That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, and anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid. [TRUE or FALSE]

That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren’t aware of the dangers involved with guns. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns contribute to high death rates and should be banned, but tobacco and alcohol are okay. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns cause crime, which is why there has never been a mass slaying at a gun show. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns cause crime, just like matches cause arson. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns cause crime, just like women cause prostitution. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns cause crime, just like men cause rape. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns aren’t necessary to national defense, which is why the US Army only has 3 million of them. [TRUE or FALSE]

That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns against armed criminals. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the Constitution protects us, so we don’t need guns, and can confiscate them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that constitution.

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gunmaker’s advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That a handgun, with up to 4 switches and controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20. [TRUE or FALSE]

That handguns are useful only for murder, which is why the police and military define them as defensive weapons. [TRUE or FALSE]

That neighbors who carry guns against the occasional lunatic are paranoid, because of the perfectly justifiable fear that every single one of them is waiting to turn into a lunatic. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used to support owning slaves. [TRUE or FALSE]

That you don’t need a gun against invaders, because the government will know in plenty of time to issue you whatever weapons you need. [TRUE or FALSE]

That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun toting guards. [TRUE or FALSE]

That most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the right of “child pornographers” to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally protected extension of the Bill of Rights, and the claim that handguns are for self defense is merely an excuse, and not really protected by the Bill of Rights. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic. [TRUE or FALSE]

That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition. [TRUE or FALSE]

That we should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops guns instead of beer. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a registration plan will reduce crime, because criminals will register their guns despite the Supreme Court decision Haynes v. U.S. (309 U.S. 85, 1968) that registration violates self-incrimination. [TRUE or FALSE]

That it’s reasonable to require proof of a criminal act before an order of protection can be issued, and reasonable to assume anyone with a gun will commit a criminal act. [TRUE or FALSE]

That teaching abstinence exclusively rather than use of condoms is doomed to fail, but encouraging absolute bans on guns rather than education in safe use is the only acceptable method of reducing crime. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns are the gravest threat to society, because 83,000,000 gun owners didn’t commit a crime yesterday. [TRUE or FALSE]

That it is essential to incorporate locks and sensors into guns to make them safer, that only a criminal would not support them, and cops and federal agents would be exempt for safety reasons. [TRUE or FALSE]

That all gun dealers sell illegal weapons, just like all black people sell drugs. [TRUE or FALSE]

That crime is higher in urban areas with less guns, and we must continue to disarm the minorities in these areas because of the risk of crime, and that isn’t bigotry. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns are useless against tyranny, because an armed populace of 160 million cannot defeat an army of 2 million mixed in among it. [TRUE or FALSE]

That if the above is true, we should not be terrified of the concept of that government holding control of our lives and freedom at its whim. [TRUE or FALSE]

That one should be more afraid of one’s spouse blowing a gasket and shooting the children, than of those children being run over by a hormone-driven teenager in a car. [TRUE or FALSE]

That people are too stupid to handle guns, but are intelligent enough to vote. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns are not an effective means of self-defense, which is why police carry them. [TRUE or FALSE]

That one can “study” the “gun issue,” but not know the difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the NRA, with over 4 million members, is “out of touch” with America, and HCI, with 50 thousand members, is a “mandate from the people.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That a baseball bat is good protection against a burglar, provided his gun fires baseballs. [TRUE or FALSE]

That manufacturers are not responsible for damages caused by their products, unless that product is a gun. [TRUE or FALSE]

That trigger locks and other devices make guns safer, which is why the police and military refuse to use them. [TRUE or FALSE]

That registration of guns will help law enforcement, because that way they won’t need probable cause and a warrant to conduct a search. [TRUE or FALSE]

That registration of guns, which makes their existence a matter of public knowledge under the FOIA, isn’t dangerous to owners. [TRUE or FALSE]

That registration of guns, in violation of the McClure-Volkmer Act, and as declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is somehow still legal. [TRUE or FALSE]

That private citizens making private sales of private property is a “loophole.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That making it harder to get a license to sell firearms legally will reduce the number of people selling illegally. [TRUE or FALSE]

That it’s safer to do nothing than resist with a gun, which is why the military wins so many wars by not fighting. [TRUE or FALSE]

That we must close shooting ranges because of the noise, but ban silencers because they are quiet. [TRUE or FALSE]

That owning a gun for self-defense indicates an intent to kill, just like owning a first aid kit indicates an intent to impersonate a physician. [TRUE or FALSE]

That there’s no right to own military weapons, which is why the Civilian Marksmanship Program at http://www.odcmp.com exists to sell military weapons to civilians under Congressional authority. [TRUE or FALSE]

That suggesting teachers be armed is an outrageous suggestion for a “civilized” society, which is why the Swiss and Israelis do it. [TRUE or FALSE]

That making it harder and harder for even cops to have guns on school property will make it harder for lunatics to kill the utterly helpless students. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the 14th Amendment requires states to accept each other’s drivers licenses, even with age or vision requirement differences, marriage licenses even with age or relationship differences or if it’s a gay marriage, but somehow doesn’t apply to licenses to carry weapons. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the same people who build illegal high-tech drug labs for less than $30,000 won’t build illegal low-tech gun shops for less than $10,000. [TRUE or FALSE]

That people with large gun collections are dangerous, especially if they have more than two hands to shoot with. [TRUE or FALSE]

That autoloaders are “easily converted” to fully automatic fire, and the person telling you this has no idea how it’s accomplished. [TRUE or FALSE]

That banning rifles with bayonet lugs will cut down on all the drive-by bayonetings. [TRUE or FALSE]

That shooting at an intruder who smashes your door and enters with knife in hand will somehow “escalate the violence.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That it’s safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns cause crime, which is why there was no rape or murder in the Dark Ages. [TRUE or FALSE]

That stopping the people who don’t commit murder from having guns will lessen the number of those who do. [TRUE or FALSE]

Since banning a few guns hasn’t helped, we should ban more. [TRUE or FALSE]

That “crime guns” and old police guns should be destroyed at government expense, because the cost of exorcising the evil spirits from them before selling them to lawful owners is exorbitant. [TRUE or FALSE]

That raising the legal age to possess firearms from 18 to 21 will REALLY show those 16 year olds. [TRUE or FALSE]

That inner-city blacks in public housing should be disarmed to prevent crimes, but not rich white suburbanites. And it isn’t a sign of racism. [TRUE or FALSE]

That creating firearms crime by having a Byzantine code of firearm laws proves there’s a problem, and justifies more laws to create more crime. [TRUE or FALSE]

That liberal parents who give guns to problem children to “teach them responsibility” are not responsible for the deaths they cause, but everyone else’s guns are. [TRUE or FALSE]

That gun owners are a threat by existing that must be destroyed by any means possible, and their rights are unimportant, but the thugs who attack us on the street who the gun owners wish to be armed against are simply a problem we have to put up with. [TRUE or FALSE]

That one should judge all gun owners by the acts of a few criminals, just like one should judge all blacks by the acts of a few inner-city crack dealers. [TRUE or FALSE]

That making it harder to get firearms legally will reduce their illegal use, just like making it harder to get a prescription will cut down on the illicit drug trade. [TRUE or FALSE]

That it’s tragic when a child dies in a firearms accident, and we must pass restrictive laws to prevent it, but children poisoned by household chemicals are simply unavoidable accidents. [TRUE or FALSE]

That I don’t need a gun, therefore no one needs one, and I have the right to impose that belief and will on them. [TRUE or FALSE]

That stupidity can be cured by legislation. [TRUE or FALSE]

That societies with less guns have less killings by guns, just like societies with less cars have less vehicular homicide. [TRUE or FALSE]

That criminals who rob to support their drug habit can afford $65 a minute in ammunition for their automatic “Weapon of choice.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That with nationwide gun control, the entire nation can be as safe as NYC, LA and Chicago. [TRUE or FALSE]

That since a gun isn’t 100% effective for self defense, you should get rid of it, along with your first aid kit and fire extinguisher, since they aren’t 100% effective, either. [TRUE or FALSE]

That if Chicago were to legalize firearms, it would have shootouts in the streets, which never happens now. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a “safe gun” will help stop criminal misuse of firearms just like “safe sex” works so well to stop rape. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a cop with felonies on his record is safe with fully automatic weapons and a churchgoing mother with a parking ticket as her worst crime is unfit to use a pistol to protect her child. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a suicide who used a gun would still be alive if they’d used a knife or hanged themselves. [TRUE or FALSE]

That someone’s suicide is a problem for the rest of us that would be prevented if we gave up our guns. [TRUE or FALSE]

That alcohol is acceptable in private, as long as the user doesn’t use it while driving. But mere possession of a gun is a threat to others. [TRUE or FALSE]

That gun owners are unwilling to compromise, which is why there are only 20,000 gun laws in the US. [TRUE or FALSE]

That criminals are better shots than civilians, because of all the time they spend on the practice range. [TRUE or FALSE]

That since criminals are better shots by the logic above, one is safer by not shooting back, but just waiting for them to run out of ammo. [TRUE or FALSE]

That it’s reasonable to assume an accident would have been lethal if the victim wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, and reasonable to assume that an armed defender would have been safe even if they didn’t have a gun. [TRUE or FALSE]

That one accidental death is too many, but thousands of people dying because the means of self-defense were not available is unavoidable and not worthy of worry. [TRUE or FALSE]

That we should ban guns because people have a “right to feel safe,” but the right to feel safe by owning firearms for defense is not valid. [TRUE or FALSE]

That it’s outrageous to count 18 and 19 year-old parents as “children” for statistical purposes, but perfectly acceptable to count them as children for purposes of exaggerating gun deaths among “children.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That a zero-tolerance policy is bad regarding drugs, but a zero-tolerance policy is good regarding guns. [TRUE or FALSE]

That martial arts are a better form of self-defense, and can defeat an armed opponent, but we still need to ban guns because of the danger they present to those few people who don’t know karate. [TRUE or FALSE]

That government officials can be trusted with automatic weapons, but private citizens cannot, because of the number of people they kill while kicking in doors without search warrants. [TRUE or FALSE]

That an 18 year old can handle a machinegun and die defending another nation’s oil reserves, thereby being a hero, but an 18 year old who tries to defend his or her child with a gun belongs in jail. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the few people who can’t use martial arts or other non-lethal means of self-defense—the young, the old, the infirm, the disabled, the weak, the small, and the pregnant—are simply the necessary sacrifice we must make to criminals to avoid the risks of letting people be armed. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the dangers of guns outweigh their recreational uses, unlike alcohol and motorcycles. [TRUE or FALSE]

That getting rid of guns reduces violence, so the military should be armed with bouquets of flowers. [TRUE or FALSE]

That we should hang out at funeral homes to tell the families of the deceased how lucky they are their loved one was killed by a drunk and not a man with a gun. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a conservative with a dozen guns is an “extremist,” and a liberal with a dozen guns is a “museum.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That a team of cops shooting an unarmed citizen 19 times and not getting charged with murder is “law enforcement” but an old lady shooting a knife-wielding attacker is “vigilanteism,” and we should leave defense to the professionals. [TRUE or FALSE]

That we should require trigger locks and safe storage facilities for all guns, in order to prevent accidents, just like we require all household chemicals to be kept in a locked cabinet. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a woman shooting a rapist is a felon. [TRUE or FALSE]

That NORML is good for supporting legalization of a politically unpopular product, but the NRA is bad for supporting legalization of a politically unpopular product. [TRUE or FALSE]

That poor people who live in high crime areas and can’t afford alarms shouldn’t be allowed to have guns either. [TRUE or FALSE]

That telling a murderer he’ll go to jail for carrying a gun will make him think twice. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the only way to end gun violence is to ban guns, just like the only way to end medical malpractice is to ban doctors. [TRUE or FALSE]

That killing a triple murderer so you don’t become the fourth victim is “escalating the violence.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That we should get rid of “junk guns” so that criminals are forced to use reliable high-quality guns. [TRUE or FALSE]

That repealing laws that discriminate against gun-owners “endorses” guns, just like repealing laws that discriminate against gays “endorses” homosexuality. [TRUE or FALSE]

That guns are designed only to kill, just like women are designed only to give birth. [TRUE or FALSE]

That only people over 21 are allowed to defend themselves. [TRUE or FALSE]

That we should ban guns because their primary purpose is to kill people, but we shouldn’t ban alcohol, which has its primary purpose getting intoxicated and losing control of the higher faculties, thereby increasing violence and accidental death. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the lack of mention of firearms in Colonial literature proves their scarcity, much like the lack of mention of outhouses. [TRUE or FALSE]

That somehow the above is any more relevant to the 2nd Amendment than the lack of letters to public officials and newspapers is relevant to the 1st Amendment. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a person who would commit violence with a gun would never do so with a knife. [TRUE or FALSE]

That most people are seething cauldrons of potential violence who cannot be trusted with a gun, and most people are so decent that there is no need to carry a weapon for defense. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a person foolish enough to leave a gun loaded and lying in reach of a child will somehow be responsible enough to attach a trigger lock. [TRUE or FALSE]

That 83 million gun owners are “extremists,” and the 50,000 members of the Million Moron March are “the majority.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That a woman buying a gun to defend herself against a violent ex needs five days to “cool off.” [TRUE or FALSE]

That a woman being raped should refuse help from an armed stranger, and instead wait for the police. [TRUE or FALSE]

That if an a group of anti-gun protesters feels threatened, they should ask police with guns to protect them while they tell everyone how worthless guns are for protection. [TRUE or FALSE]

That a trauma surgeon’s experience in treating gunshot wounds makes him an expert on gun control legislation, just like an automobile body repair technician’s experience reapiring cars makes him an expert on traffic laws. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the typical town only needs one law enforcement officer per 1000 population, becuase most people are law abiding, and that it’s dangerous to let citizens carry weapons because most people are criminal. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the risk of arrest for carrying a weapon on school grounds will stop a person bent on suicide from starting a shootout. [TRUE or FALSE]

That felons should be denied the right to ever own a weapon, just like rapists should be castrated before being released from jail. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the 1939 US vs Miller case, is “established law” that endorses gun control, just like Plessy vs Ferguson endorsed “separate but equal” schools. [TRUE or FALSE]

That game wardens have the most dangerous job in the world, because everyone they deal with is armed. [TRUE or FALSE]

That there’s no risk of the US becoming a police state, Japanese-Americans were not interned in the 40’s, blacks were not oppressed and jailed in the 50’s, and no students were killed at Kent State. [TRUE or FALSE]

That when the government promises that they won’t confiscate our weapons after we register them, we can believe them. Just like the Commanche, the Sioux, the Apache, the Kaw, the Cree, the Blackfoot, the Italians in NYC, the Jews in Germany, the Zulu in South Africa…and the Americans at Lexington. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the government can control guns as well as it controls drugs. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the high crime rate in cities with oppressive gun control proves the need for gun control in cities without gun control and with low crime. [TRUE or FALSE]

That we don’t need guns because America is safe, and only criminals or people wishing to start trouble would be out late at night in bad neighborhoods. [TRUE or FALSE]

That there is no left-wing conspiracy to send police and troops to imprison American gun owners, but there is a vast, right-wing conspiracy of gun owners who must be disarmed for attempting to stop it. [TRUE or FALSE]

That .50 caliber weapons must be banned in case Americans use them to shoot holes in the armored cars that the government doesn’t own and isn’t going to send against them. [TRUE or FALSE]

That ships using Australian waters mustn’t carry handguns against the mythical threat of piracy or mutiny, because some aspiring captain might sell them for a few bucks.

That gang punks shot by other gang punks are innocent victims, and babies shot by government agents deserve to die because of the unpopular beliefs of their parents. [TRUE or FALSE]

That allowing the poor and minorities to defend themselves is fascist. [TRUE or FALSE]

That small arms can’t win wars, as all the Viet Cong bombing, air superiority, and naval missions prove. [TRUE or FALSE]

That John Wayne, rejected by the military for bad knees, who portrayed firearms as used by soldiers and law enforcement is an agent of evil, but antigun draft dodger Sylvester Stallone, making movies about Vietnam veterans and using weapons gratuitously, is an American hero to be slobbered over. [TRUE or FALSE]

That violence is bad, but any defensive use of a firearm that doesn’t involve the death of the perpetrator is invalid. [TRUE or FALSE]

That the NRA is bad for running political activities, but the Million Moron March is good for stealing money from AIDS research, illegally maintaining tax-exempt status as a 501c(3) organization and fraudulently using a hospital rent-free as its headquarters is good for running political activities. [TRUE or FALSE]

A gun in the hand is BETTER THAN A COP ON THE PHONE [TRUE or FALSE]

Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer. [TRUE or FALSE]

Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control. [TRUE or FALSE]

64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. [TRUE or FALSE]

A government that is afraid of its citizens tries to disarm them. [TRUE or FALSE]

By Bruce Wilcox

February 7, 2007 01:12 AM | Link to this

jack how many states were there when the Constitution was written? If the federal government controls all gun issues concerning the laws of firearms it overrides any state constitution, isn’t that true? Matter of fact you stated such in your post above, so which is it?

The Constitution was ratified and went into effect on June 21, 1788. The Bill of Rights was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791.

Now jack again you try to accuse me of saying something I never said, “And who says the federal government doesn’t have it’s own laws controlling the right to bear arms? Are you actually stating that as a fact?” I just stated that the right to control, issue permits and set rules concerning firearms lies with the states as stated in Section 8. The feds can have as many laws as they want that will override state laws.

If control of firearms from the begining was limited to the federal government then no matter what any state put in their constitution could not override federal law. I wonder how states got that right, lets see, Article I, Section 8, -16 maybe?

jack you’re a joke, it has been fun, its bedtime and I have to check the foxholes before I turn in.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 7, 2007 01:26 AM | Link to this

Oh jack I’m not avoiding your questions, they popped up while I was responding to your last post. And jack save the NRA stuff for someone who cares about what Wayne dictates to you.

I have a permit and two handguns, if I pull my weapon I plan on using it. I will protect my home, my family and myself, but I am not as paranoid as you seen to be.

I like busting your chops, you bs so much you confuse yourself, but I give you credit for being the best I’ve seen at quoting others.

It was fun, now it’s just boring, back to the bunker for me, I have to be on watch in a few hours.

Good night.

By lysander spooner

February 7, 2007 05:09 AM | Link to this

“Foolish liberals who want to read the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a public safety issue don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.” — Alan Dershowitz (certainly no right-wing gun nut)

By John Burton

February 7, 2007 05:54 AM | Link to this

BAN clumsiness!

Forget about criminal violence, I know its out there but come on, most of us (thankfully) wont be violently attacked. The real danger is clumsiness. We need to ban clumsiness, its for the children.
When you consider that there are more accidental deaths from clumsiness then firearms you really need to admit that this is an issue we need to address.
Why dont we see it in the press more often?
How many people die every year in this entire country from accidental slips and falls?
Please ladies and gentlemen, lets address this major issue of clumsiness before its to late. Lets start to educate our children at an early age, teach them about the dangers of slipping and falling. Lets pad them with foam before they leave the home for school.

By bob

February 7, 2007 07:38 AM | Link to this

And I can’t seem to open the paper without reading about people dying daily from car crashes, accidental drownings, neglect, tobacco smoke, alcohol and medical malpractice either. Check the numbers and you’ll find firearm-related injuries are less than any one of those annually.

By Lynn

February 7, 2007 07:39 AM | Link to this

I hate to bust your bubble Bruce but I have read and studied the constitution myself and come to pretty much the same conclusions as Jack and others here. Jack is not lying to me, YOU ARE!!! And another thing, we don’t get our source material from the NRA, the NRA gets there sources from the same places we do, By looking them up ourselves.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 7, 2007 08:34 AM | Link to this

Lynn I challenge you to explain why the states control gun laws and issue permits and not the federal government?

That is what jack can not answer, lets see what you can do? Remember this only applies to the U.S. Constitution not state constitutions.

This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, it’s about Article I, Section 8 which was written before the Bill of Rights.

Because nowhere in the Second Amendment does it give gun control to the states, so if not Section 8, then where in the Constitution gives it?

And please do not use the jack approach if you don’t know the answer baffle them with bs.

The floor is yours.

By KA

February 7, 2007 08:42 AM | Link to this

We are the United States of America and all of the powers not reserved to the federal government are those of the individual States to administer. The problem with our country is the growing power of the ferderal government, the steady incursion and preemption in areas that the States have been governing.

By Brian Curtis

February 7, 2007 09:07 AM | Link to this

Wow, now Jack is so worked up he’s escalated from mass-posting to outright spamming! Obviously he feels that his hard, steely rod might be taken away from him and leave him less of a man.

What silly folks the gun-fondlers are! This is hilarious. Keep raving, Jack, keep it up long and hard.

By Jack in Owasso, Ok

February 7, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

You need to remember that it is The Bill of Rights, not The List of Suggestions. The Second Amendment deserves as much protection and indulgence as does the First Amendment and the other 8 in the original Bill of Rights. You state that you don’t want anybody but law enforcement to own any type of firearms. The UK is trying that and look at the results - Crime is on the rise, with the bad guys using guns, knifes, what ever their sleezy hands can pick up, to intimidate the law abiding public. The same goes for Austrailia.
‘Nuff said for now.

By Barry Bright

February 7, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

I’ve wasted enough of my life arguing with idiotic lowlifes like you. You and your kind don’t deserve to live in this country with its bloodstained soil from which you draw your food.

When you succeed in banning guns please come and knock on my front door and ask me for mine. I’ll happily show you what they and the Second Amendment are for.

By Marilyn Jost

February 7, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Bass, There are so many misconceptions and half truths in your article, it is difficult to know where to start. I will take it paragraph by paragraph, and hope I can address all of them.

The term “Gun Violence” was coined by the groups who wish to eliminate gun ownership in the United States, hoping that the anthropomorphic quality of “violence” assigned to a tool would make people fearful of them. Violence is something committed by living things, not inanimate objects. Fear of any inanimate object is most often due to the person’s lack of knowledge and understanding about that object. I own guns, and not one of them has jumped up and shot me or anyone else I know.

The shootings you described fall into two categories…crime and lack of education. Crime, unfortunately, occurs everywhere…churches and schools not exempted, but interestingly enough, almost never at a gun range! Hmmm, could this be because the first two are “gun free zones” and the later is not?

Gun Safety is something that should be taught from childhood at every opportunity…yes, even public schools. Ignorance is never an acceptable way to handle any problem. At one time, every High School in America had a gun range in the school, and yet the massive school shootings didn’t start happening until they were made “gun free” areas. Hmmm.

I suggest you take a few martial arts classes. The first thing you will find is that it’s not about kicking and punching, but how well you can TAKE a kick or a punch. That kind of discipline and the power you attain from it is apt to make you less likely to fight….to avoid fighting at all costs….because you know what can happen. Firearms are the ultimate martial art weapon. Those of us, who train to use them in self defense, are often also trained in other techniques and weapons, and the same mindset applies. The people for whom power is dangerous are the CRIMINALS, because they don’t train either with safety or discipline. Regardless of what laws you pass, CRIMINALS will always get weapons. The only people affected by gun laws, are those already obeying the laws.

I know of 3 women who without a firearm, would have been raped or murdered…..almost all by ex-spouses. Restraining orders are useless against a drunken, knife wielding assailant at 3 in the morning. A .45, however, usually stops the assault, and in most instances WITHOUT firing the gun. You don’t have any of those examples in your article…wonder why? I guarantee you, those 3 women have very good reasons to own firearms. Calling the police and waiting for them to respond can take up to ½ hour where I live. Attacks happen in seconds. Not a real promising scenario for me while I wait for the white knight to save me.

It is obvious from your descriptions of guns that you have no idea what you are discussing. Assault Weapon is another term made up by the gun haters, to scare us into thinking this means a machine gun….it doesn’t. The original German Sturmgewehr or Assault Rifle, referred specifically to a machine gun. The Assault Weapon Ban banned semi-automatic rifles, which issue one round for each trigger pull….NOT a machine gun. You don’t mention revolvers, and yet they fire the same number of rounds per trigger pull as a semi-automatic?

Guns have existed in homes with children for hundreds of years. The difference today is the breakdown of family values, discipline and individual responsibility. Instead of encouraging MORE education about firearms, you encourage ignorance, and wonder why 12 year olds are accidentally shooting each other? 12 year olds and women were the ones protecting the farms while the men went off to fight in the Revolutionary and Civil wars. Those black powder firearms were even more difficult to use, and yet no accidentally shootings occurred? Again, Hmmm.

Do a service for every one of your readers, and take an NRA Basic Firearms Safety course. Educate yourself about the topic you are so vehemently against, before you write articles with idiotic statements based on absolutely no facts and fearful whining. I bet I don’t see any of this information published in your next article, but I welcome your questions.

Marilyn Jost NJ Coordinator Second Amendment Sisters 973-786-0500 (studio in home) Member JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) NRA Certified Instructor Pistol, Shotgun, Personal Protection and Chief Range Safety Officer BA Fine Art, Small Business owner Picture Framing Shop for 15 years Mother of 2 college age boys (both on the Fencing Team, studied Martial Arts and shoot guns) (so much for the “gun owners being knuckle dragging, pick-up driving, beer swiggers” theory)

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

///jack how many states were there when the Constitution was written? If the federal government controls all gun issues concerning the laws of firearms it overrides any state constitution, isn’t that true? Matter of fact you stated such in your post above, so which is it?///

Thirteen states, and no, since we are (again and again) a republican form of government with a federalist spine the federal government does not control all gun issues. I don’t know where you keep getting this misinformation from but it is not from me.

Since you are so concerned about being misquoted, please quote the exact place and words that I “stated such in your post above”.

You can’t do that, can you? :-)

///The Constitution was ratified and went into effect on June 21, 1788. The Bill of Rights was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791.///

Much of the initial resistance to the Constitution came, not from those opposed to strengthening the federal union, but from statesmen who felt that the rights of individuals must be specifically spelled out. One of these was George Mason, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was a forerunner of the Bill of Rights. As a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Mason refused to sign the document because he felt it did not protect individual rights sufficiently. Indeed, Mason’s opposition nearly blocked ratification by Virginia. Because of similar feelings in Massachusetts, that state conditioned its ratification on the addition of specific guarantees of individual rights. By the time the First Congress convened, sentiment for adoption of such amendments was nearly unanimous, and the Congress lost little time in drafting them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HistoryoftheUnitedStates_Constitution#Ratification

The Second A. was not sprung on everyone by surprise, with no one quite realizing what they were voting on. The issue had been hashed out for years and was certainly familiar to all the delegates.

///Now jack again you try to accuse me of saying something I never said, “And who says the federal government doesn’t have it’s own laws controlling the right to bear arms? Are you actually stating that as a fact?” ////

Of course you didn’t say that. ~I~ said that. That’s obvious to anyone who reads my post. My post, my comment.

But what you said in your post at http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/norcrosstalk/entries/2007/02/04/aregunstoo_ac.html#comment-985640 was:

/// Now I ask again, why does each state have it’s own laws and rules controling the right to bear arms and not the federal government?///

That’s a direct quote from you. Anyone can check it out. So ~I~ ask you again: Are you saying that the Federal government DOESN’T have laws controlling the right to keep and bear arms? Yes or No.

If you write confusing sentences and get upset when others ask for clarification the communication in general must be tough on you. Are you related to Gracie Burns? .

By DaveD

February 7, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

I appreciate your acceptance of the fact that gun ownership is a constitutional right. That shows a level-headedness and a level of thought that is usually lacking in this debate. However, I think you are totally wrong about the evils of guns.

If the very presence of guns leads to a sense of power and the need to wield that power, as you suggest, then why should cops be trusted with guns either? I’m sure you have no desire to ban firearms from the hands of the police. You assume that they are somehow immune to the demonic possession that overcomes us mere mortals when we touch a gun.

There are 80 million gun owners in this nation and only a relative handful of accidental or self defense shootings in any given year, 20,000 or less. In fact, I believe the actual number is below 10,000. Compare that with motor vehicle deaths.

A car also fills a person with a sense of power, and 3000 pounds of steel and plastic. You doubt this? Look at road rage and how quickly it dies out when people get OUT of their armored little shell. Examine the numbers of teens and children killed every year in motor vehicle accidents. Have we banned cars? No.

The vast majority of all shootings are done by one criminal to another with illlegal guns already. Taking my gun away will not stop that. As long as guns exist, anywhere, even in the military and law enforcement, the bad guys WILL get them. There will always be someone there willing to sell it to them.

Even if all guns are banned, people will still find ways to murder other people. Look at the increase in violent crime in England. Look at history. By gun, by knife, by baseball bat, by rock, man will perpetrate violence on man.

The real question is, do we want to be able to fight back?

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

///Oh jack I’m not avoiding your questions, they popped up while I was responding to your last post.///

Sure you are Bruce… we both (and everyone else) knows that you’ll never answer these questions in public. With you it’s a one way street only. Your attempt to harass by asking the same question over and over no matter how many times it is answered but you won’t ever answer a single question yourself. To actually put yourself on the record takes a certain kind of courage which is sadly lacking.

///I have a permit and two handguns, if I pull my weapon I plan on using it. I will protect my home, my family and myself, but I am not as paranoid as you seen to be.///

And just who are you going to be protecting yourself from? Your buddy Brian claims that these are all “mythical” home invaders. He makes you sound pretty paranoid, you know.

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 01:05 PM | Link to this

///Lynn I challenge you to explain why the states control gun laws and issue permits and not the federal government?///

Sounds like Bruce is trying to find a new victim since I ate him alive. :-)

///That is what jack can not answer, lets see what you can do? Remember this only applies to the U.S. Constitution not state constitutions. ///

Lynn, this is the mark of a demagogue. Bruce simply didn’t like my answer since it didn’t fit his fantasy, so he declares that there was no answer.

I knew from the beginning that when you said Bruce was a jr. higher that he had to be an old man. Any person under 25 understands that anyone can simply scroll back and re-read the posts to find out what was and wasn’t said. Bruce keeps forgetting that though, which is the mark of someone who hasn’t grown up with computers their whole life such as a 15 year old would.

///This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, it’s about Article I, Section 8 which was written before the Bill of Rights.

Again, Bruce simply doesn’t not understand the difference between the “militia” and the “people”. I hope he has better understanding of other different categories in his life or one day he may try to make meatloaf with the dog food and give Fido the ground steak. :-)

///Because nowhere in the Second Amendment does it give gun control to the states, so if not Section 8, then where in the Constitution gives it?///

The same place that the states get the power to issue marriage licenses… doctors licenses… dog licenses… and everything else that Bruce ignores:

 Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this

///What silly folks the gun-fondlers are! This is hilarious. Keep raving, Jack, keep it up long and hard.///

Brian! So sweet of you to drop by, you silly little guy, you. Back with the typical moaning and complaining routine, eh?

BTW, thank you. You and others here have made it abundantly clear that being a gun-bigot and being obsessed with sex are part and parcel of the same personality. If I tried pointing that out without the evidence that you’ve given people would look at me and think I was putting a false face on you.

But once YOU established that gun bigot = sexed obsessed through multiple posts then it makes it much easier for that fence-sitter to understand the “ick factor” that goes along with your philosophy.

The gun-enthusiast community owes you a big thumbs up. Drop in anytime, snookums, and give us more help. :-)

By Bruce Wilcox

February 7, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this

Hey jack let others play, maybe lynn can answer the simple question i posed to you. As I told you last night I do not like bullies and I like to bust their chops by exposing them. You are easy and just keep digging, lets look how I set you up and you took it hook, line and sinker.

” jack burton February 6, 2007 01:30 PM “Btw jack Tribe and Dershowitz do not disagree with me, they did not even address the section of the Constitution I was refering to.”

Is this in some super-secret section of the Constitution that only a select few know about and Bruce is under a geas not to talk about until someone plays “three guesses” with him.

Is it something like that hidden map drawn on the back of the Declaration of Independence and the guy with the flaming skull and motorcycle has to reveal it to the world by stealing the document?

Why have a Supreme Court when Bruce can pull previously unknown stuff out of his Constitutional wahzoo to spring on unsuspecting Americans.

Stand and deliver, Bruce.

Put up or shut up.

Fish or cut bait.

Crap or get off the pot.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 02:01 PM

Do some research jack like reading the Constitution instead of misquoting it or letting someone else define such a simple document for you.

This is not a game jack, it is knowing the Constitution, it is an exercise to show that you know very little of what is in the Constitution.

I am enjoying myself by exposing you as nothing but a parrot.

In due time I will reveal the part of the Constitution you must have never seen, and I’ll toss you a cracker.”

See how easy you are jack, lets go for even more laughs…

By jack burton

February 6, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this

“Do some research jack”

Just as I forecast, and as now everyone realizes…

Bruce is quite unable to:

Stand and deliver.

Put up or shut up.

Fish or cut bait.

Crap or get off the pot.

But he’s really, really good at blaming others. :-)

By Bruce Wilcox

February 6, 2007 02:27 PM

Okay jack here is your cracker, Article 1, Section 8, -16., now go and find someone that can explain it for you.”

But you did scare me when you flipped out and started to paste columns of inane talking points that would make the New York Times look small.

You know jack it’s people like you that make gun owners look bad, you insult, attack, rant, rave and yet say little, sad really.

Here is the challenge I gave lynn and you again, to really make it simple how did the states gain the right to control firearms in their states and not the federal government.

“Lynn I challenge you to explain why the states control gun laws and issue permits and not the federal government?

That is what jack can not answer, lets see what you can do? Remember this only applies to the U.S. Constitution not state constitutions.

This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, it’s about Article I, Section 8 which was written before the Bill of Rights.

Because nowhere in the Second Amendment does it give gun control to the states, so if not Section 8, then where in the Constitution gives it?

And please do not use the jack approach if you don’t know the answer baffle them with bs.

The floor is yours.”

I did see you actually did some research on your own, now we’re making progress.

Knock on the bunker three times and give the password when or if you ever come up with a real answer.

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this

///The floor is yours.”///

Bruce… I’m afraid that you’ve slid off the far end there, buddy. I have no idea what you were trying to get across in that post other than you took some obscure portion of the Constitution and tried to apply it to the concept of RKBA as contained in the 2nd A.

I posted the links to a number of fine, outstanding articles that deal with RKBA and you’ve posted nothing but the ramblings of an lonely old man lost in his cups.

Please give five noted, nationally recognized lawyers who gives any weight to your postulations, along with their specific tie of that section to RKBA.

Give us some sources of professors that are teaching Constitutional scholarship at the University level who agree with you. Give us a cite from a federal court that references your theory on any major RKBA case.

Surely you can do this. Can’t you?

Let’s be honest here, my friend. You have given us nothing but your ramblings. No cites, no references, no backup, no outside support.

Why do suppose that is. Because you have none?

Tell us. If you can…

BTW… I am still waiting for you to answer the TRUE and FALSE questions. Or is this a place where only you get to ask questions and everyone else dances to your tune?

By Bruce Wilcox

February 7, 2007 02:48 PM | Link to this

jack it is very simple, ready, read slow now. That what you call an obscure section of the Constitution shows how ignorant and disrespectful you are of the document.

Article I, Section 8-16 gives the states full and complete control of the militia.

The Second Amendment clearly 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”. Remember it’s one sentence.

See how neatly they are tied together, this is how the states were given the full control over firearm laws.

Do you really think jack that something as important as the Second Amendment would be lumped into the Tenth Amendment? The Bill of Rights was used to clear up a lot of loose ends, they had a regulated militia, but missed the part about the rights of the people to bear arms. The Second Amendment took care of that but it also made sure that full control, least back then, remained with the states to regulate arms.

It is history jack, no tricks and does not effect the right to bear arms in any way except that the states make the rules and issue permits.

Answer the questions jack? Are you really telling me I have to answer the inane rambling of someone who I feel has lost all sense of reality? See what I mean jack by making gun owners look bad, give it up, take a nap or your meds.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 7, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), the Supreme Court was faced with challenges to state statutes which were alleged to contravene the right to keep and bear arms. In dismissing the challenge and upholding the state laws, the court concluded that the Bill of Rights constituted a limitation on the power of Congress and the national government, but did not constitute a limitation upon the states. Since United States v. Cruikshank applied the same rule to the First Amendment, it is clear that those cases can have no continuing vitality in light of the numerous Twentieth Century cases holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights. See, e.g., Palko v. Conn., 302 U.S. 319 (1937).

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 03:09 PM | Link to this

///jack it is very simple, ready, read slow now.///

Still waiting for legitimate cites and sources to give you any backup.

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

“In United States v. Cruikshank,”

Did you make up this paragraph yourself, Bruce, or are you quoting someone? If you’re quoting someone it is generally considered good ‘net procedures to also post a link to the quote so that everyone can read it in context.

So did you make it up? Or where’s the link?

And your source is wrong. The SCOTUS has never incoporated the 2nd A into the 14th, which is a great part of the problem that we have with states overeaching the boundraries set by the 2nd.

Let me show you how it’s done. I’ll now give a link that backs up what I just said about the 2nd and the 14th.

“Although the Court has since properly incorporated the First Amendment into the Fourteenth to make it applicable to the states (it has yet to do so with the Second), barring that the Cruikshank Court’s strict reading of federal jurisdiction under the Constitution was not incorrect. “

http://www.csamerican.com/SC.asp?r=92+U.S.+542

Simple, eh?

And we’re all still waiting to hear from some constitutional scholars eager to back up what you say.

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

By Brian Curtis

February 7, 2007 04:10 PM | Link to this

None of your pesky “facts,” Bruce! They get in the way of the fevered dream of Unlimited Gun-Totin’ that all true believers insist was the original intent of Constitution… nay, the very purpose of America itself!

Hee, hee! I’m loving this!

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 04:23 PM | Link to this

test

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this

test

By Woody Bass

February 7, 2007 06:04 PM | Link to this

Wow… Even the sisters are gettin involved. Excellent!

By Tom

February 7, 2007 06:21 PM | Link to this

“Even more frightening…” is the thought that once all of us commoners are devoid of arms that the gooberment can reign tyrannical. Don’t think it can happen? History 101.

“How do you feel about free speech? Do you feel some free speech should be banned and that others are too accessible?

Ouch! We can do away with one ammendemt and not the rest? The 2nd protects your 1st, no matter how flawed.

By Barry Bright

February 7, 2007 06:45 PM | Link to this

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual state. … Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments; and those will have the same disposition toward the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. … “It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the state governments will in all possible contingencies afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Mike Vanderboegh knows the principle issues of our time and how to make fools of tyrants. When Prez Clinton visited Birmingham some time ago, Mike put a message on his truck and drove around town, getting lots of attention and laughs. But he is also serious, dead serious about our rights acknowledged via the Second Amendment. There is a lot of wisdom in the article he wrote below:

A LETTER FROM HAGOOD’S CROSSROADS, ALABAMA 5 December 1998 “WHAT GOOD CAN A HANDGUN DO AGAINST AN ARMY…..?” A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed: “If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I’m not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I’m just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)” If I may, I’d like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one to which I have given much research and considerable thought. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership told me once: “If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic.” Note well that phrase: “and the will to use it,” for the simply-stated question, “What good can a handgun do against an army?”, is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let’s answer the military question. Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let’s consider the tactical. A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it’s powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier’s weapon than an assassin’s tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the millions during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn’t hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good. The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a half- hour with your “sister”). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with “getting out of Dodge,” for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor’s friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so he can go get his own rifle. Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with “Boche” blood, but you don’t mind terribly.) Pretty soon you’ve got the best armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite’s opposition to so-called “Saturday Night Specials” doesn’t come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.) They called the pistol the “Liberator.” Not a bad name, all in all. Now let’s consider the strategic aspect of the question, “What good can a handgun do against an army….?” We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That’s tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention “Afghanistan” or “Chechnya” to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas- present fashion out in the middle of the desert. I forget the name of the Senator who observed, “You know, a million here and a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking about serious money.” Consider that there are at least as many firearms— handguns, rifles and shotguns— as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million– that’s a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility— everything from camouflage clothing to infrared “game finders”, Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes. Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother-soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its’ relatives backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their “rebellious” neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question). But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, “A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you’re talking serious firepower.” No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry is disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, “a people numerous and armed.” The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government’s intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gunowners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of “gun control,” which is to say “government control of all guns,” although few self-respecting gun-grabbers would be quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly. Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisors and asked, “The Pope? How many divisions does he have?” Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion. Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The “divisions” of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing. And although they may be an ever-diminishing minority within their own country, as gun ownership is demonized and discouraged by the ruling elites, still they are as yet more than enough to perform their vital task. And if they are unaware of the impediment they present to their would-be rulers, their would-be rulers are painfully aware of these “divisions of liberty,” as evidenced by their incessant calls for individual disarmament. They understand moral versus military force just as clearly as Stalin, but they would not be so indelicate as to quote him. The Roman Republic failed because they could not successfully answer the question, “Who Shall Guard the Guards?” The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments. Like Stalin, the Clintonistas could care less what common folk say about them, but the concept of the armed citizenry as guarantors of their own liberties sets their teeth on edge and disturbs their statist sleep. Governments, some great men once avowed, derive their legitimacy from “the consent of the governed.” In the country that these men founded, it should not be required to remind anyone that the people do not obtain their natural, God-given liberties by “the consent of the Government.” Yet in this century, our once great constitutional republic has been so profaned in the pursuit of power and social engineering by corrupt leaders as to be unrecognizable to the Founders. And in large measure we have ourselves to blame because at each crucial step along the way the usurpers of our liberties have obtained the consent of a majority of the governed to do what they have done, often in the name of “democracy”— a political system rejected by the Founders. Another good friend of mine gave the best description of pure democracy I have ever heard. “Democracy,” he concluded, “is three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner.” The rights of the sheep in this system are by no means guaranteed. Now it is true that our present wolf-like, would-be rulers do not as yet seek to eat that sheep and its peaceable wooly cousins (We, the people). They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of taxes, and if possible and when necessary, be reminded of their rightful place in society as “good citizen sheep” whose safety from the big bad wolves outside their barn doors is only guaranteed by the omni-presence in the barn of the “good wolves” of the government. Indeed, they do not present themselves as wolves at all, but rather these lupines parade around in sheep’s clothing, bleating insistently in falsetto about the welfare of the flock and the necessity to surrender liberty and property “for the children”, er, ah, I mean “the lambs.” In order to ensure future generations of compliant sheep, they are careful to educate the lambs in the way of “political correctness,” tutoring them in the totalitarian faiths that “it takes a barnyard to raise a lamb” and “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Every now and then, some tough old independent-minded ram refuses to be shorn and tries to remind the flock that they once decided affairs themselves according to the rule of law of their ancestors, and without the help of their “betters.” When that happens, the fangs become apparent and the conspicuously unwilling are shunned, cowed, driven off or (occasionally) killed. But flashing teeth or not, the majority of the flock has learned over time not to resist the Lupine-Mandarin class which herds it. Their Founders, who were fiercely independent rams, would have long ago chased off such usurpers. Any present members of the flock who think like that are denounced as antediluvian or mentally deranged. There are some of these dissidents the lupines would like to punish, but they dare not— for their teeth are every bit as long as their “betters.” Indeed, this is the reason the wolves haven’t eaten any sheep in generations. To the wolves chagrin, this portion of the flock is armed and they outnumber the wolves by a considerable margin. For now the wolves are content to watch the numbers of these “armed sheep” diminish, as long teeth are no longer fashionable in polite society. (Indeed, they are considered by the literati to be an anachronism best forgotten and such sheep are dismissed by the Mandarins as “Tooth Nuts” or “Right Leg Fanatics”.) When the numbers of armed sheep fall below a level that wolves can feel safe to do so, the eating will begin. The wolves are patient, and proceed by infinitesimal degrees like the slowly-boiling frog. It took them generations to lull the sheep into accepting them as rulers instead of elected representatives. If it takes another generation or two of sheep to complete the process, the wolves can wait. This is our “Animal Farm,” without apology to George Orwell. Even so, the truth is that one man with a pistol CAN defeat an army, given a righteous cause for which to fight, enough determination to risk death for that cause, and enough brains, luck and friends to win the struggle. This is true in war but also in politics, and it is not necessary to be a Prussian militarist to see it. The dirty little secret of today’s ruling elite as represented by the Clintonistas is that they want people of conscience and principle to be divided in as many ways as possible (“wedge issues” the consultants call them) so that they may be more easily manipulated. No issue of race, religion, class or economics is left unexploited. Lost in the din of jostling special interests are the few voices who point out that if we refuse to be divided from what truly unites us as a people, we cannot be defeated on the large issues of principle, faith, the constitutional republic and the rule of law. More importantly, woe and ridicule will be heaped upon anyone who points out that like the blustering Wizard of Oz, the federal tax and regulation machine is not as omniscient, omnipotent or fearsome as they would have us believe. Like the Wizard, they fan the scary flames higher and shout, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” For the truth is, they are frightened that we will find out how pitifully few they are compared to the mass of the citizenry they seek to frighten into compliance with their tax collections, property seizures and bureaucratic, unconstitutional power-shifting. I strongly recommend everyone see the new animated movie “A Bug’s Life”. Simple truths may often be found sheltering beneath unlikely overhangs, there protected by the pelting storm of lies that soak us everyday. “A Bug’s Life”, a children’s movie of all things, is just such a place. The plot revolves around an ant hill on an unnamed island, where the ants placate predatory grasshoppers by offering them each year one-half of the food they gather (sounds a lot like the IRS, right?). Driven to desperation by the insatiable tax demands of the large, fearsome grasshoppers, one enterprising ant goes abroad seeking bug mercenaries who will return with him and defend the anthill when the grasshoppers return. (If this sounds a lot like an animated “Magnificent Seven”, you’re right.) The grasshoppers (who roar about like some biker gang or perhaps the ATF in black helicopters, take your pick) are, at one point in the movie, lounging around in a bug cantina down in Mexico, living off the bounty of the land. The harvest seeds they eat are dispensed one at a time from an upturned bar bottle. Two grasshoppers suggest to their leader, a menacing fellow named “Hopper” (whose voice characterization by Kevin Spacey is suitably evil personified), that they should forget about the poor ants on the island. Here, they say, we can live off the fat of the land, why worry about some upstart ants? Hopper turns on them instantly. “Would you like a seed?” he quietly asks one. “Sure,” answers the skeptical grasshopper thug. “Would you like one?” Hopper asks the other. “Yeah,” says he. Hopper manipulates the spigot on the bar bottle twice, and distributes the seeds to them. “So, you want to know why we have to go back to the island, do you?” Hopper asks menacingly as the thugs munch on their seeds. “I’ll show you why!” he shouts, removing the cap from the bottle entirely with one quick blow. The seeds, no longer restrained by the cap, respond to gravity and rush out all at once, inundating the two grasshoppers and crushing them. Hopper turns to his remaining fellow grasshoppers and shrieks, “That’s why!” I’m paraphrasing from memory here, for I’ve only seen the movie once. But Hopper then explains, “Don’t you remember the upstart ant on that island? They outnumber us a hundred to one. How long do you think we’ll last if they ever figure that out?” “If the ants are not frightened of us,” Hopper tells them, “our game is finished. We’re finished.” Of course it comes as no surprise that in the end the ants figure that out. Would that liberty-loving Americans were as smart as animated ants. Courage to stand against tyranny, fortunately, is not only found on videotape. Courage flowers from the heart, from the twin roots of deeply-held principle and faith in God. There are American heroes living today who have not yet performed the deeds of principled courage that future history books will record. They have not yet had to stand in the gap, to plug it with their own fragile bodies and lives against the evil that portends. Not yet have they been required to pledge “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.” Yet they will have to. I believe with all my heart the lesson that history teaches: That each and every generation of Americans is given, along with the liberty and opportunity that is their heritage, the duty to defend America against the tyrannies of their day. Our father’s father’s fathers fought this same fight. Our mother’s mother’s mothers fought it as well. From the Revolution through the world wars, from the Cold War through to the Gulf, they fought to secure their liberty in conflicts great and small, within and without. They stood faithful to the oath that our Founders gave us: To bear true faith and allegiance— not to a man; not to the land; not to a political party, but to an idea. The idea is liberty, as codified in the Constitution of the United States. We swear, as did they, an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And throughout the years they paid in blood and treasure the terrible price of that oath. That was their day. This is ours. The clouds we can see on the horizon may be a simple rain or a vast hurricane, but there is a storm coming. Make no mistake. Lincoln said that this nation cannot long exist half slave and half free. I say, if I may humbly paraphrase, that this nation cannot long exist one-third slave, one-third uncommitted, and one-third free. The slavery today is of the mind and soul not the body, but it is slavery without a doubt that the Clintons and their toadies are pushing. It is slavery to worship our nominally-elected representatives as our rulers instead of requiring their trustworthiness as our servants. It is slavery of the mind and soul that demands that God-given rights that our Forefathers secured with their blood and sacrifice be traded for false security of a nanny-state which will tend to our “legitimate needs” as they are perceived by that government. It is slavery to worship humanism as religion and slavery to deny life and liberty to unborn Americans. As people of faith in God, whatever our denomination, we are in bondage to a plantation system that steals our money; history, supplanting it with sanitized and politicized “correctness”; denies our children a real public education; denies them even the mention of God in school; denies, in fact, the very existence of God. So finally we are faced with, and we must return to, the moral component of the question: “What good can a handgun do against an army?” The answer is “Nothing,” or “Everything.” The outcome depends upon the mind and heart and soul of the man or woman who holds it. One may also ask, “What good can a sling in the hands of a boy do against a marauding giant?” If your cause is just and righteous much can be done, not only if you are willing to risk the consequences of failure and to bear the burdens of eternal vigilance. A new friend of mine gave me a plaque the other day. Upon it is written these words by Winston Churchill, a man who knew much about fighting tyranny: “Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” The Spartans at Thermopolae knew this. The fighting Jews of Masada knew this, when every man, woman and child died rather than submit to Roman tyranny. The Texans who died at the Alamo knew this. The frozen patriots of Valley Forge knew this. The “expendable men” of Bataan and Corregidor knew this. If there is one lesson of Hitlerism and the Holocaust, it is that free men, if they wish to remain free, must resist would-be tyrants at the first opportunity and at every opportunity. Remember that whether they come as conquerors or elected officials, the men who secretly wish to be your murderers must first convince you that you must accept them as your masters. Free men and women must not wait until they are “selected,” divided and herded into Warsaw Ghettos, there to finally fight desperately, almost without weapons, and die outnumbered. The tyrant must be met at the door when he appears. At your door, or mine, wherever he shows his bloody appetite. He must be met by the pistol which can defeat an army. He must be met at every door, for in truth we outnumber him and his henchmen. It matters not whether they call themselves Communists or Nazis or something else. It matters not what flag they fly, nor what uniform they wear. It matters not what excuses they give for stealing your liberty, your property or your life. “By their works ye shall know them.” The time is late. Those who once had trouble reading the hour on their watches have no trouble seeing by the glare of the fire at Waco. Few of us realized at the time that the Constitution was burning right along with the Davidians. Now we know better. We have had the advantage of that horrible illumination for more than five years now— five years in which the rule of law and the battered old parchment of our beloved Constitution have been smashed, shredded and besmirched by the Clintonistas. In this process they have been aided and abetted by the cowardly incompetence of the “opposition” Republican leadership, a fact made crystal clear by the Waco hearings. They have forgotten Daniel Webster’s warning: “Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands— what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world.” Yet being able to see what has happened has not helped us reverse, or even slow, the process. The sad fact is that we may have to resign ourselves to the prospect of having to maintain our principles and our liberty in the face of becoming a disenfranchised minority within our own country. The middle third of the populace, it seems, will continue to waffle in favor of the enemies of the Constitution until their comfort level with the economy is endangered. They’ve got theirs, Jack. The Republicans, who we thought could represent our interests and protect the Constitution and the rule of law, have been demonstrated to be political eunuchs. Alan Keyes was dead right when he characterized the last election as one between “the lawless Democrats and the gutless Republicans.” The spectacular political failures of our current leaders are unrivaled in our history unless you recall the unprincipled jockeying for position and tragi-comedy of misunderstanding and miscommunication which lead to our first Civil War. And make no mistake, it is civil war which may be the most horrible corollary of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to the Clintonistas and their destruction of the rule of law. Because such people have no cause for which they are willing to die (all morality being relativistic to them, and all principles compromisable), they cannot fathom the motives or behavior of people who believe that there are some principles worth fighting and dying for. Out of such failures of understanding come wars. Particularly because although such elitists would not risk their own necks in a fight, they have no compunction about ordering others in their pay to fight for them. It is not the deaths of others, but their own deaths, that they fear. As a Christian, I cannot fear my own death, but rather I am commanded by my God to live in such a way as to make my death a homecoming. That this makes me incomprehensible and threatening to those who wish to be my masters is something I can do little about. I would suggest to them that they not poke their godless, tyrannical noses down my alley. As the coiled rattlesnake flag of the Revolution bluntly stated: “Don’t Tread on Me!” Or, as our state motto here in Alabama declares: “We Dare Defend Our Rights.” But can a handgun defeat an army? Yes. It remains to be seen whether the struggle of our generation against the tyrants of our day in the first decade of the 21st Century will bring a restoration of liberty and the rule of law or a dark and bloody descent into chaos and slavery. If it is to be the former, I will meet you at the new Yorktown. If it is to be the latter, I will meet you at Masada. But I will not be a slave. And I know that whether we succeed or fail, if we should fall along the way our graves will one day be visited by other free Americans, thanking us that we did not forget that, with the help of Almighty God, in the hands of a free man a handgun CAN defeat a tyrant’s army. Copyright 1998. Mike Vanderboegh P.O. Box 926 Pinson, AL 35126 Mo10Cav@aol.com

http://www.doubleought.com/what-good-can-a-handgun-do-against-an-army-by-mike-vanderboegh/

http://billstclair.com/blog/stories/handgun.html

“No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
- Alan Bullock, in Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives

The kind of ‘gun control’ Amerika needs: “No child shall be allowed to graduate high school until he/she has demonstrated the ability to control a gun well enough to hit a running “Liberal” at 300 meters.”

You can lead a jackass to the library but you can’t make him think.

By Tom

February 7, 2007 06:48 PM | Link to this

Bruce, are you saying in this:

*”The Second Amendment clearly 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”. Remember it’s one sentence.

See how neatly they are tied together, this is how the states were given the full control over firearm laws.”*

that the ARMS were to be well regulated? Because I could swear that that “regulated” there was modifying “militia.” Also, given the concept of citizen soldiers, the militia (for clarification on the subject see TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311) could be called upon by congress they would need to have been TRAINED (regulated) in the ways of the army, how it operates, how to load their weapons, basic concepts like these. Not to mention that it’s two separate concepts. A well regulated militia is necessary to a free state. Also that the right (not government granted privilege) of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the people were disarmed there could be no militia to defend free states.

Also, Article 1, sec 8 *”To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”*

The so-called bill of rights is a limitation on congress. Sadly that has been violated, as has the equal protection clause of the 14th.

The fact of the matter is that I, and countless millions of Americans, have not surrendered their God given rights, and will not.

Woodhead can propose all the grand schemes he wants, but that doesn’t change the fact that the government has no rights here, and has no authority to take them away. The feds have been operating outside the law for much too long, be it the “war on drugs” which they have no constitutional authority to do anything about. If they did why did they have to pass an amendment to deal with ALCOHOL? The REAL ID act that will be coming into force next year, without it you can’t open a bank account, board a plane, enter federal buildings. All of the gun laws. Do I need to even bring up their planned databases on biometric information and DNA? How about the campaign finance reform? The complete failure of it’s primary duty to guard the country from invasions, especially by the 12 millions+ illegals entering across the Mexican border. This government is out of control and morons like you and woodhead, while sucking down ‘burgers and cheering for some stupid athlete, want to give the government ULTIMATE power over the citizens of this country that have proven time and time again that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

You need to put the pipe down and come back to reality.

By lynn

February 7, 2007 07:15 PM | Link to this

Bruce Nowhere in the constitution does it give the states power to regulate guns. Any gun control laws enacted by states are unconstitutional. We can’t answer your questions because your questions are bogus. There simply no way to answer them. Jack, the Militia is all able bodied citizens 17 to 45. This is codified in US law. The difference between the Militia and the people is nothing more than what age group you are in. A well regulated Militia means well equiped, well trained outside of any goverment control

By Bruce Wilcox

February 7, 2007 07:17 PM | Link to this

Now, now jack, we are bringing God into this, God and not the consitution now rules all? Why didn’t you say that in the begining, tell me jack, is he also Commander In Chief?

“The so-called bill of rights is a limitation on congress. Sadly that has been violated, as has the equal protection clause of the 14th.

The fact of the matter is that I, and countless millions of Americans, have not surrendered their God given rights, and will not.”

Bzzzz you lose, weak, weak defense, ” Sadly that has been violated,” by whom jack the Supremes?

“In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), the Supreme Court was faced with challenges to state statutes which were alleged to contravene the right to keep and bear arms. In dismissing the challenge and upholding the state laws, the court concluded that the Bill of Rights constituted a limitation on the power of Congress and the national government, but did not constitute a limitation upon the states.”

There is your answer jack, the Supremes have ruled, I don’t need Dorkowitz to explain it to me.

As I said jack, I just like busting your chops and exposing you as some kind of zealot. You get your butt kicked on the Constitution so now it’s God that gives you the right. And I hate beating God jack, those lightening bolts are getting harder and harder to deflect.

And jack, sorry I don’t bounce back right away, it the tears from laughing so much makes it hard to type.

Have to get back and the check ramparts jack.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 7, 2007 07:24 PM | Link to this

Hey lynn, who gives you a pistol permit, hey lynn, who sets down the rules for getting a pistol permit, hey lynn read the Supremes rulings that I gave above and finally read the Constitution, or maybe join jack and God gives you the permit now.

lynn the militia as you say is “well trained outside of any goverment control” is one of the funniest answers yet, you’re begining to make jack look sane.

By lynn

February 7, 2007 07:32 PM | Link to this

Hey Bruce it wasn’t jack that made these last points you brought up it was someone else! Jack was right. you don’t know how tom scroll back. Those were some mighty fine points you made Tom.

By Tom

February 7, 2007 07:32 PM | Link to this

Perhaps you can’t read Brucey, I’m not Jack, jack.

Rights COME FROM God.

Perhaps you missed another founding document of this nation, the Declaration of Independence.

Bold:“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Or is it now that YOU are arguing that government created americans?

you can BZZZZ all day long Brucey, but the simple fact is that the only way I will surrender my right of self defense and preservation of my life is when the last breath comes out of me. If you’d like to check that come to Ohio and we can arrange a test.

The supremes have also cited INTERNATIONAL law, which you will find nothing in the constitution about, yeah, the same constitution that is the supreme law in this nation. They also ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks were not whole people. Are you arguing that they are perfect and everything they say is accurate?

dearly hold on to that little bit of knowledge you THINK you have. I still don’t see how your cases make any difference, it says CONGRESS can’t infringe. Big deal. There are plenty of state amendments that say the same thing or more. You may pretend you’re intelligent and are something you’re not all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that what they’re doing is unconstitutional. Your stupidity will have you marching lockstep until it’s too late.

By lynn

February 7, 2007 07:47 PM | Link to this

Hey Bruce go to http//dictionary.reference.com and look up the definition of “Militia” and tell us what it says. Come on Bruce its just an online dictionary.

By Tom

February 7, 2007 08:28 PM | Link to this

Lynn, I provided the law

Bold:TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

Here’s what it says:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

that’s US law. I also further state that the national guard is NOT the militia talked about by the constitution since it did not exist at the time.

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 09:20 PM | Link to this

We’ve got poor Bruce so wound up that not only is he mis-quoting me on a regular basis but now he’s also mis-peopling me also. :-)

My Momma always said that I was so handsome I should have been twins. Welcome to the family, Tom. :-)

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 09:48 PM | Link to this

Hey, Bruce… you get around to working on those TRUE or FALSE questions yet, or are you the only one who gets to ask questions here?

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 10:23 PM | Link to this

Bruce says:

///Article I, Section 8-16 gives the states full and complete control of the militia.///

While driving around the south side of Chicago today I had an epiphany about Bruce and his beliefs.

I was noticing all the little storefront churches, most of which have only a few dozen members at the most.

The majority of them were pretty straight and narrow, but every couple of blocks there was a shining example of a person who started a church because he had some special revelation from God about an obscure, small portion of the Bible that suddenly became the most important passage that was ever written.

Out of two thousand years of church history, these people apparently found something that every other person had overlooked in the Bible, and they based their whole theology around it.

There were some pretty weird examples. The Thou Shall Not Mix Materials in Your Garments Church — The One Strike On The Rock Is Better Than Two Strikes Church… you get the idea.

There’s always enough gullible people to give these so-called pastors and bishops a congregation… even if it is only a few people. All they need is to pay the rent each week they’re cool.

Bruce is exactly the same kind of person. He takes an obscure passage in the Constitution that applies to militias and tries to apply it to the “people” as if they are the same when they clearly are not.

Preacher Bruce can’t find a single expert to back him up, and he can’t cite a single reference to back him up, but he’s as much of a true believer as the person who only wants to hit that rock once, not twice.

But the problem for Preacher Bruce is that he is preaching to the wrong congregation here. I just don’t think he’s going to find here the gullible folk necessary to make him happy. We seem to be the kind of folk who would like to see what other experts have to say about it other than Preacher Bruce.

But, so sad, he has no other experts. No cites. No references.

Preacher Bruce is very disappointed in us. We just won’t take him on faith. Bad Jack. Bad Lynn. Bad Tom and all the others.

Thus concludes my bedtime story about Preacher Bruce and the failure of the Section 8 Church and Grill.

By Tom

February 7, 2007 10:24 PM | Link to this

Hey Bruce, what says a permit is required when keeping AND bearing arms is a right? Seems that would relegate a right to a privilege. Wow, good thing the government “lets” us do anything. After all, they’re set to the capitol to represent us, not rule over us.

Here’s the wording on the revision of the CCW law here in Ohio. I disagree with the CCW law since it does miss the point that a right cannot be limited. However, they seem to have at least got this part right.

Sec. 9.68. (A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio…

To somewhat defend Lynn, though I don’t think she needs it, as far as the militia being trained outside of government control, I would assume that she meant primarily left to train on there own, that is to shoot, practice loading, unloading, know their weapons and how to maintain and repair them. In the time of the constitution muzzle loaders were used, loading them took skill and practice, and under stress this could become more difficult. Drilling on these aspects were needed to maintain proficiency. Marching isn’t too tough to figure out. Understanding the basic skills needed and keeping up with them. Sadly, as you’ve demonstrated most people out there these days do not, ask woodhead. I’d also be willing to put money that the vast majority of people like you can not name a single piece of legislation on a federal, state, or local level, what it was meant to do, but they’ll be able to tell you which stupid teenage singer has the best __ or to rattle off endless meaningless stats on what some athlete (pros, college, highschool) has. Hell, I’d bet that most people don’t know what their kids are even up to, what they’re ‘taught” in school, or where there kids are right now.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 7, 2007 10:31 PM | Link to this

Hey Tommy, we’re talking about the Constitution, no creator or God in that little document. Oh and Tommy your deep research into the US Code has nothing to do with the discussion at hand or is it dated 1791?

And it’s hard to discern one zealot from the other, then there’s lynn.

And jack, as I told you last night and tonight, you’re wacked if you think I will answer on demand to the inane rambling of someone that has lost touch with reality, so jack my man, keep waiting.

Now we have three on the ledge I bet I could get y’all a group discount at Happydale.

Lights out kids, as always it has been a real joy, you really brighten up a day and always leave me with a smile.

By Tom

February 7, 2007 11:07 PM | Link to this

Bruce, perhaps you’re unaware that the declaration of independence pre-dates the constitution. It’s that document that severed our ties to England. I am well aware that God is not mentioned in the constitution, but that does not mean that rights were not given from and attributed to God. The average man accepted this, it’s like having to say that water is wet.

While I think about it, you made a smarmy little comment about Wayne LaPierre. Just who was it who aided us during the revolution Bruce? France.

There was no deep research into the code. In 1791 people as ignorant as yourself were not commonplace and the average person understood who and what the militia was. There weren’t massive piles of law that had to stipulate and define everything for fools.

Your poorly educated comments add nothing. All you’ve managed to do is to dodge questions you cannot answer, to avoid saying you can’t answer or don’t know how to answer, and to show your general ignorance of the founding principles, documents and history of the country. I’m surprised you managed to stop back in to add nothing. Shouldn’t you be watching TV or groveling at the feet of your master, the state?

Just admit you have a problem facing reality and we can help you.

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 11:08 PM | Link to this

///And jack, as I told you last night and tonight, you’re wacked if you think I will answer on demand to the inane rambling of someone that has lost touch with reality, so jack my man, keep waiting.///

Just as I forecast, Preacher Bruce. You’re good about demanding answers from everyone else but quite unwilling to answer a few yourself. :-)

Do you really think that goes unnoticed by everyone?

At least you got my name right, though. I was quite concerned to think the sauce was getting to you a little to much. I suspect it’s lonely being retired and not really wanted by anyone or useful for anything, but it’s really not a good idea to use the bottle to relieve your frustrations.

Sooner or later it will catch up to you.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 7, 2007 11:10 PM | Link to this

One quick question, did any of the three of you ever consider becoming an astronaut?

By Bruce Wilcox

February 7, 2007 11:39 PM | Link to this

Preacher Bruce? Sorry I’m not the one that believes pistol permits are issued by God.

As to your inane NRA questions, there are over a 100, if or when I’m here tomorrow ask me them one by one for I can really think about each one.

btw…haven’t had a drink since 98’, being retired is fun, except right now I have a broken wrist that limits me to just busting your chops for now. I get a screw in it on Friday and hopefully I will be back outside in short order.

And jack my man I do believe the readers are really enjoying this, I know I am.

By jack burton

February 7, 2007 11:54 PM | Link to this

///Preacher Bruce? Sorry I’m not the one that believes pistol permits are issued by God.///

I haven’t read anyone post that… could you give a cite? But you are the one to receive miraculous knowledge from the thin air about the Constitution that no one else seems to be able to back up… so we’ll keep the “Preacher Bruce” as it seems to fit well.

///As to your inane NRA questions, there are over a 100, if or when I’m here tomorrow ask me them one by one for I can really think about each one.///

My goodness Bruce, just cut and paste and delete the wrong answer. It’s simple. Takes about two or three minutes. These are not questions that require days of study… they are about five seconds worth of pondering each. Be a man, do it.

///btw…haven’t had a drink since 98’, being retired is fun, except right now I have a broken wrist that limits me to just busting your chops for now. I get a screw in it on Friday and hopefully I will be back outside in short order.///

Dry drunks can be nasty people… that may explain a lot. Hope your wrist gets better; I’m laid up with gall bladder trouble and every time I sneeze it feels as if someone has taken a ballbat to my ribcage.

///And jack my man I do believe the readers are really enjoying this, I know I am.///

I had a friend who enjoyed getting kinky and beat up. He usually had to pay a Domitrix to do it for him but here you can get beat up and abused for free. :-)

Have a good night, Preacher Bruce.

By Tom

February 7, 2007 11:59 PM | Link to this

proctologist comes to mind when I hear your name now for some reason.

I’ll type it slowly for you so you can read it through your “prescription” pain meds.

R I G H T S
C O M E
F R O M
G O D.

Pistol “permits” are a government granted privilege that comes when people, such as yourself who pat themselves on the back for their delusional self importance, so-called “knowledge,” and ability to waste the time of people on the internet while showing their own stupidity, let government infringe upon their rights.

here’s a definition of **permit

2per•mit "per-‘mit, per-“\ noun (1682) 1 : a written warrant or license granted by one having authority 2 : permission**

Now, in this crazy little representative republic we have, where does the power come from? Who has the power? Who is the ultimate authority

Since you’re doped up on pain meds I’ll make it as simple as possible for you to follow. The people have ALL the rights and power. We have granted some of that to the state and federal governments. We have RETAINED those rights not granted to the government. The God given RIGHT of self defense, either on the individual level of the collective (militia) level and through whatever means the defender sees necessary, has NOT been granted to the government. That right is retained by the people.

The government has been given the power to organize the militia (people) when it is necessary, to arm them when called into federal service if necessary, most likely simply supplying ammunition. They have NOT been granted the power to take away that right, however much those misled such as yourself and the corrupt “representatives” that have written unconstitutional laws may want to believe otherwise.

By Ed

February 8, 2007 01:35 AM | Link to this

Woody: You have a fear of an inanimate object. The term is “hoplophobia” You talk about the fear of people having more power than they should, the fear of people being able to access firearms with ease, yet you have done no research into the “whys” and “whos.”

I was under the impression that journalists were supposed to root out facts before making judgments. Here’s a fact; gun control’s roots are racism against African-Americans.

Here’s an assignment for you; read Jeffrey Snyder’s essay “A Nation of Cowards” (Google it) and then report what you think about what you find.

Until then, I wish you well on your quest for security.

By Heard it here first

February 8, 2007 08:10 AM | Link to this

Tom Im sorry.. but in response to:

*I’ll type it slowly for you so you can read it through your “prescription” pain meds.

R I G H T S C O M E F R O M G O D.*

I have to say…

Try that argument in a court of law and let me know how that goes ok?

Also, what proof do you have that makes that true?

If so many people are proposing that someone’s thoughts and opinions are less relevant because they didnt include any facts to back up the opinions… You would certainly have a greater chance of failing the burden of proof test than this author would with his opinions on guns.

By lynn

February 8, 2007 08:33 AM | Link to this

Hey Bruce, did you look up what I told you in the dictionary? In Our state,”Vermont” you don’t need a permit to carry, CCW or otherwise. Carry at will. Very low crime rate here. And I’m not a her I’m a he

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 09:38 AM | Link to this

Well lynn, I know Vermont very well, I’m was a Upstate New Yorker till 93’ right across the boarder. And because of Vermonts laws you have just proved my point. Firearm laws have been and always will be a State Right as it was written into the Constitution.

Look at New York State laws compared to Vermonts, an adoption would be easier to get than a carry permit.

My entire point in all this debate was that while people scream about the Second Amendment being deluted, they have more to worry about from their own states.

The proof is in the Supreme Court ruling…“In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), the Supreme Court was faced with challenges to state statutes which were alleged to contravene the right to keep and bear arms. In dismissing the challenge and upholding the state laws, the court concluded that the Bill of Rights constituted a limitation on the power of Congress and the national government, but did not constitute a limitation upon the states.”

The key line here us…”the Bill of Rights constituted a limitation on the power of Congress and the national government, but did not constitute a limitation upon the states.”

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Tom, this intense research you have doing including TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311, which does not apply, the National Guard did come into exsistence till 1916 and did away with state militias. So you can plainly see that this Code, which did not even exsist in 1791, is garbage.

The Declaration of Independence grants no rights, and did you ever wonder why the terms “Natural God” and not a “Christian God” were used?

One thing I’ll give you, you recycle, you can not even come up with an original insult but twist jacks?

Reading history and understanding history are two different things, you now join jack in the Parrots Club.

The gall bladder jack, have the mirco surgery, three little holes it’s out and you’re out in the same day.

You can say I’m drunk, drugged or for some strange reason jack threw in kinky, even knew where to find a helper, hmmm and the amazing part of it I still make a lot more sense than you.

By Yeah, I said it

February 8, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

“Rights come from god,” Are you kidding me??? That’s the biggest laugh I’ve had all day. There is NO god. People make laws and people wrote our constitution and bill of rights. Geez, the ignorance in this backwards a* state called Georgia.

By scott windle

February 8, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Hey Woody, I am an old Geezer (when there were trampolines in the Gym, and ropes that were attached to the ceiling in the Gym)and am grateful for you recognizing the 2nd ammendment. I will say this about guns, take away the pleasure one derives from using them illegally and/or irresponsibly and there will be NO problem with them. Lastly, the only reason the United States is NOT a socialist/communist nation, is that the Government fears the millions of guns that exist in America. They know they have no chance of having their way in America as long as we, the People, have the means of preventing them from doing so…………

By Joe Huffman

February 8, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

This post might be useful for settling the individual versus states “rights” issue. Constitutional scholar quotes are included.

By InWonder

February 8, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Uh, “Yeah, I said it”… a MAJORITY of Americans believe in some “type” of higher-being or “god”. So, the MAJORITY of Americans are backwards in their thinking - according to your logic. If you want to say “there is no god”, that is YOUR belief, just as I believe there is a God. You and I have no rights to force our beliefs on anyone, yet it is the minority who think like you who are pushing that belief on society while pointing fingers at people like me that are carrying a Bible in public (oh,no!)and saying that “we are forcing our religion on people.” We don’t even have to open our mouth and you all start in that we are “forcing our religion”. Apparently, people acting morally and those using the Bible as a moral compass is just wrong and it is offending people. Well, may be you are offending us, but we aren’t allowed to be offended, only you are. Double-standards I would say.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Joe Huffman, mostly it endorses my view of state rights.

Here is a good question, when has the Second Amendment ever been attempted to be altered or changed by Congress? I do not know of any, worry more about the states changing the laws.

By jack burton

February 8, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

///Well lynn, I know Vermont very well, I’m was a Upstate New Yorker till 93’ right across the boarder. And because of Vermonts laws you have just proved my point. Firearm laws have been and always will be a State Right as it was written into the Constitution.///

Preacher Bruce, we’re a republic. The states share certain powers with the Federal government, including the responsibility for firearm laws. No one here has argued otherwise. That’s why it was pointed out that virtually all states have something in their supreme law of the state (constitution) about the right to keep and bear arms. Why would this be in there if they didn’t have shared responsibility?

Count up the times in the past threads where I have already said an almost identical post. The key word here is “shared.”

///My entire point in all this debate was that while people scream about the Second Amendment being deluted, they have more to worry about from their own states.///

Hmmm…. Illinois is getting ready to pass a law banning so-called assault weapons. Is that going to affect me here in Indiana? No.

Is it going to affect my brother in Missouri? No.

Is it going to affect my cousin in Texas? No

Also, the Dimocrat majority in Congress is proposing a renewal of the ban on so-called assault rifles at a national level. Will that affect every person no matter which state they live in? Yes.

Now, which as an Indiana resident do I have the most to be concerned about?

///The proof is in the Supreme Court ruling…“In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), the Supreme Court was faced with challenges to state statutes which were alleged to contravene the right to keep and bear arms. In dismissing the challenge and upholding the state laws, the court concluded that the Bill of Rights constituted a limitation on the power of Congress and the national government, but did not constitute a limitation upon the states.” The key line here us…”the Bill of Rights constituted a limitation on the power of Congress and the national government, but did not constitute a limitation upon the states.”///

Notice there was not any reference to Section 8 in there. Wonder why not. And as noted much earlier, much of Cruikshank has been bypassed by the incorporation of much (but not all) of the BOR into the 14th Admentment. Scroll back and one can see the post dealing with this (but Preacher Bruce has never located his scroll back button so I can see where he is having problems with this.)

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

jack you are a bore, go up Joe Huffman’s post with the link, see how many times militia is used. jack I can not helped those who can not or refuses to be helped. I can not teach history to the deaf. It’s what came first, Section 8 or the Second Amendment? I did inform you that the Constitution was passed a few years before the Bill of Rights.

Riddle me this jack, how did states grant the right to bear arms before the Bill of Rights was passed?

And jack being that you are so informed on Congress could you give me the Bill number. I’d like to look it up.

By jack burton

February 8, 2007 01:03 PM | Link to this

///Tom, this intense research you have doing including TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311, which does not apply, the National Guard did come into exsistence till 1916 and did away with state militias. So you can plainly see that this Code, which did not even exsist in 1791, is garbage.///

Did away with state militias, eh? That’s a pretty black and white statement. “…did away…”

Should be easy to find out if that’s true or false, eh? And if it’s false it pretty much undercuts most of what Preacher claims, eh.

Here’s just one pretty good functional example of a state militia that is both in existence and is functioning pretty well today. But don’t let facts confuse us. :-)

“The current Virginia Militia under Virginia Code § 44-1 states “The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Militia

///The Declaration of Independence grants no rights, and did you ever wonder why the terms “Natural God” and not a “Christian God” were used? ///

Of course the Declaration “grants” no rights – it declares them. Duh!

And you’re getting awful picky about Gods, aren’t you. Next you’ll be complaining that they didn’t name him by Yahweh instead of Adonia.

////One thing I’ll give you, you recycle, you can not even come up with an original insult but twist jacks? ////

So THAT’S the reason you can’t tell him from me? I knew we’d get down to the bottom of it eventually (even though an apology never came forth – not that I expected one, of course.)

///Reading history and understanding history are two different things, you now join jack in the Parrots Club.///

Yes… Like we know that there really, really are state militias today unlike other posters. :-)

///You can say I’m drunk, drugged or for some strange reason jack threw in kinky, even knew where to find a helper, hmmm and the amazing part of it I still make a lot more sense than you.///

Yes, it takes a certain amount of kink in the mind to subject yourself to the harm you’re doing to yourself here. About the only semi-positive trait that could be said that you’ve established is doggedness, and even that in the service of error is not a good thing. Anyone who’s been shown to be as wrong about everything as you have and still comes back for more is not functioning quite normal.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this

jack can you even dress yourself?

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this

The National Defense Act, 1916 This act abandoned the idea of an expandable Regular Army and firmly established the traditional concept of the citizens’ army as the keystone of the United States defense forces. It established the concept of merging the National Guard, the Army Reserve, and the Regular Army into the Army of the United States in time of war. The act further expanded the National Guard’s role, and guaranteed the State militias’ status as the Army’s primary reserve force. The law mandated use of the term “National Guard” for that force, and the President was given authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. The number of yearly drills increased from 24 to 48 and annual training from five to 15 days. Drill pay was authorized for the first time.

By jack burton

February 8, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

///It’s what came first, Section 8 or the Second Amendment?///

Section 8 deals with the militia… 2nd A deals with the people. Apples and oranges. But I notice that despite repeated requests you still have not posted just one cite from any respected, nationally known constitutional scholar backing you up.

What’s up with that?

///Riddle me this jack, how did states grant the right to bear arms before the Bill of Rights was passed? ///

So your question implies that the people had NO right to bear arms before the states decided to “grant” it. Correct?

Every single person in the colonies who carried a weapon of any kind was doing it without the right to do so until the “states” somehow granted them that right.

Or did the people have the right to bears arms even well before the states even existed? Did they have this right by nature and by common law? And did the states merely note it’s existence?

///And jack being that you are so informed on Congress could you give me the Bill number. I’d like to look it up. ///

Which bill number, Preacher? I assume you mean the one trying to get us national recognition for CCW?

Here it is on the senate side:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/

and on the house side:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189

By jack burton

February 8, 2007 02:26 PM | Link to this

///jack can you even dress yourself?///

Preacher Bruce is close to breaking, folks. Another few posts and we’ll see him in complete meltdown rant mode.

I’ll warn you in advance, it won’t be pretty. It never is.

Hey, Bruce… I’m still waiting for those answers that you promised me to the TRUE and FALSE questions. You’re not backing out are you?

Do you believe that you’re the only one who gets to ask questions here?

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

By jack burton

February 8, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this

///Drill pay was authorized for the first time.///

After having sucked on that teat for over 20 years I am quite aware of what drill pay is. But that has nothing to do with the militia, as proven early.

Please do try to keep on point, Preacher. Otherwise you confuse the newcomers who are left wondering why your posts just pop out of no where and contain no info germane to the other posts.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this

jack, jack, jack, answer the question please…///Riddle me this jack, how did states grant the right to bear arms before the Bill of Rights was passed? /// this after all is about the Constitution, not what happened before, dance, prance and squirm all you like, at least stick to the subject.

“No constitutional scholar backing you up.” The Supreme Court trump all, isn’t that true jack? And they have ruled.

As I told you last night about the questions…” As to your inane NRA questions, there are over a 100, if or when I’m here tomorrow ask me them one by one for I can really think about each one.” Go for it jack.

And jack are you really saying that the The National Defense Act of 1916 doesn’t exist? That it does not include this statement…”The act further expanded the National Guard’s role, and guaranteed the State militias’ status as the Army’s primary reserve force. The law mandated use of the term “National Guard” for that force”?

As to the House Bill, isn’t it co-sponsered by one of those liberal Democrats. In your talking points I see that it has been proposed since 1956, gee all those good conservative Republicans had 12 years to pass it, go figure.

By jack burton

February 8, 2007 03:39 PM | Link to this

///jack, jack, jack, answer the question please…///Riddle me this jack, how did states grant the right to bear arms before the Bill of Rights was passed? ///

Preacher, that’s a question like, “What kind of green cheese is the Moon made of?” There is simply no context in which it’s a valid question. That’s why I asked for clarification. Now, even if YOU think it is a perfectly valid question the fact that I asked for clarification should tell you there is a need to reword it so that it makes some sense to ME.

That’s a basic responsibility of being an educator, and if you want to educate folk you have to ask them questions that they can understand. It matters not if YOU think you know what you are speaking of if no one else does. So give it another try with differing wording. Just what are you trying to ask?

It is your obligation to present your questions in an understandable format… and not our responsibility to puzzle out seeming nonsense from a poorly worded question. Even if the possibility exists that it is our fault for being too stupid to see what you are asking, you still then have the responsibility to heed our request to reword it in order to help us see what you are asking.

///“No constitutional scholar backing you up.” The Supreme Court trump all, isn’t that true jack? And they have ruled.///

Really… really? Then you have no problem giving a cite, including the web URL, where the SCOTUS referenced Section 8 and the 2nd A in the same case concerning RKBA and where they used Section 8 to change or modify the meaning of the 2nd A.

Put up or shut up, Preacher. :-)

///As I told you last night about the questions…” As to your inane NRA questions, there are over a 100, if or when I’m here tomorrow ask me them one by one for I can really think about each one.” Go for it jack.///

Preach, I don’t know where you’re getting the fixation about the NRA. As far as I am aware they’ve never heard of these questions. But we both know you think you’re the only one who can ask questions, don’t we.

That’s part and parcel of your “preacher” complex. You come up with an obscure piece of material that no one else even cares about and make it the entire center of your life and theology… and no one else dares ask you a question because you’re the mighty Preacher Man.

If you attempt to answer these questions you’ll expose yourself for the fraud that you are… like the supposed preacher who doesn’t know who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are but knows for sure that you shouldn’t mix clothing material together under penalty from God.

///And jack are you really saying that the The National Defense Act of 1916 doesn’t exist? That it does not include this statement…”The act further expanded the National Guard’s role, and guaranteed the State militias’ status as the Army’s primary reserve force. The law mandated use of the term “National Guard” for that force”?///

No, it exists all right… but it just doesn’t do what you think it does. The National Communications Act of 1934 exists also, but it doesn’t guarantee that Jack can own a radio station.

Let’s try crawling over the Virginia State Militia, Preacher.

///As to the House Bill, isn’t it co-sponsered by one of those liberal Democrats. In your talking points I see that it has been proposed since 1956, gee all those good conservative Republicans had 12 years to pass it, go figure.///

Yep, the Republicans can be a disappointment at times.

By A Million Mom Marcher

February 8, 2007 04:27 PM | Link to this

Bruce, I am glad that you are her defending our society’s right to walk down the street without being afraid of dieing in a hail of gunfire. That is as important as any anceint right to walk around with a killer gun strapped to your hip. Screw the NRA. But I am beginning to share some of the other posters frustrations with your arguments. I want to use them in my own battles with redneck citizens I happen to be living by now in this time of my life, but I need some references. They may be rednecks, but they are not stupid. Please let me know where I can go to get more information about how Section Eight works with the Second Amendment to restrict it. My professor is not going to be impressed if I tell him that I know it is true because a guy nzmed Bruce posting on the Internet said it was so.

By Tom

February 8, 2007 04:48 PM | Link to this

Bruce, you never answered my question about the supreme court’s infallibility. Is what they say ALWAYS the law? Perhaps you’d like to look at that in the context of Dred Scott where “negros” couldn’t become citizens.

perhaps if you could read the definition of militia I provided you could point out where in that law it says that ONLY the national guard is the militia. Also what does 1916 have to do with 1791?

Bruce, remember this “When one who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, they will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.” You sir have ceased to be honest as has the vast majority of gun hating lunatics.

As for God, he indeed DOES grant rights, if you and the whack jobs posting here that there is no God want to believe that states grant RIGHTS, then when Bush, Clinton, or any of your other friends takes them away, too bad for you. Your stupidity knows no bounds. I urge you to support the laws introduced by the democratic congress to repeal the 22nd amendment, to force grassroots organizations to have to register with the government if they speak to more then 500 people, by all means, lean to kiss the feet of your masters. You are an ignorant and sad little person with no true understanding that the concept of militia was in existence nearly 1000 years before America existed and that we saw the value in that an incorporated it into our form of government.

Spend more time learning history instead or lying to people on the internet to stroke your ego and accomplish your goal of disarming the population. The simple fact is registration leads to confiscation and genocide. Need proof, look to Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa.

Anything you or Woody say is a lie or half truth in an attempt to deceive the people of this nation.

Kiss the feet of your masters, because YOU will be the ones who gave them their power.

I’m done with this child. Let the Braces and Woodsy of this world try to take our guns.

“The more your government restricts your options, the more you psychologically look to government to keep you safe, fed, clothed, housed and sustained. There is a word for people who are fed, clothed, housed and sustained fully by others, and that word is SLAVES.” — Bill Whittle

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

Well Million it is very simple, it’s States vs Federal Rights, Article 1, Section 8-16 of the Constitution gives the States full and complete control over firearms. How did states grant the right to bear arms before the Bill of Rights was passed?

The only way possible if Section 8 granted them the power, because the Bill of Rights wasn’t enacted as of yet.

The proof is in the Supreme Court ruling…In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), the Supreme Court was faced with challenges to state statutes which were alleged to contravene the right to keep and bear arms. In dismissing the challenge and upholding the state laws, the court concluded that the Bill of Rights constituted a limitation on the power of Congress and the national government, but did not constitute a limitation upon the states.” The key line here us…”the Bill of Rights constituted a limitation on the power of Congress and the national government, but did not constitute a limitation upon the states.”

It has no effect on the right to bear arms, I just like to expose bigmouth bullies like jack how truely ignorant they are.

Jack here is a hard one for you…who does the State of Virginia send to Iraq, the State Militia or the National Guard?

By A Million Mom Marcher

February 8, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this

Bruce, I’m quite disappointed with you’re response. I was trusting that you could help me but you won’t. I need an expert to say that Section Eight does what you say is does, not just the word of some unknowng guy on the Internet. Sorry, but that just won’t fly with my thesis professor. I am sorry that I wasted my time asking you for a feerence but you certainlay wasted my time by reading you. We may be on the same side but the other people are right about you.

By jack burton

February 8, 2007 06:20 PM | Link to this

///Bruce, I’m quite disappointed with you’re response.///

MMM… Please let me extend an apology concerning Bruce’s behaviour and to explain why he hasn’t answered your request for more support.

You see, he can’t.

That’s why we call him Preacher. He got his revelation about his beliefs directly from the thin air and simply has no references to provide you. It’s not that he doesn’t want to, but he simply has none.

While I am sad that you are going away with a hurt attitude I do encourage you to leave with something positive. The vast majority of the claims of those who dislike guns are just like Bruce. And they have been lying to you and your friends for years.

Just as you have been dissappointed in Bruce I believe if you continue your research into the anti-gun community more you’ll find that your disappoint will continue to grow with their willingness to fudge data, to make up stuff, and to let their base emotions run wild.

As you do I encourage you to find good-hearted folk who do know about guns and get introduced to them. I think you’ll find it a world of difference between the Bruces of the world, and those who are honest and sincere.

By jack burton

February 8, 2007 06:28 PM | Link to this

////Well Million it is very simple,///

Well, Preacher, not only do you disappoint those of us who really would like a discussion with you but you also manage to hack off those who want to support you. That takes real talent. :-)

////Jack here is a hard one for you…who does the State of Virginia send to Iraq, the State Militia or the National Guard?///

Un un, Preacher. No more questions for you until you answer some of the ones posed to you… starting with the TRUE or FALSE test.

Or do you think you are the only one who gets to ask questions on this topic?

Waiting…

Waiting…

Waiting…

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 06:29 PM | Link to this

Sorry Million, if the Supreme Court is not good enough, I do not know who could be? Try entering Article I, Section 8-16 ib google, I’m sure you’ll find some assistance. As far as being some guy on the web, I can not blame you, but I have studied American history all my life. Sometimes just common sense and understanding of the issue is all one needs to figure it out. I find it sad that more and more people just can not think for themselves anymore.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 06:37 PM | Link to this

Nice dodge jack, like all the others, too late for you to post the questions to me now jack, things to do before tomorrows operation.

Discussion jack? You’ve been beaten on several issues in this two day duck and cover exercise you.ve been using. Hate to say, even to the point of being worried about your mental health when you flipped out and posted foot long rambling of someone that had lost touch with reality.

Maybe I’ll be around Saturday, depending how the new cast effects my typing.

Chow

By lynn

February 8, 2007 06:59 PM | Link to this

Bruce, You need to go here and read what states have to say about arms as inumerated in their state constitutions. Here is a list by UCLA professors for the right to bear arms. www.law.ucla.edu/volkh/beararms/statwcon.htm… Did you look up the word like I told you. You afraid. Oh and another thing, states don’t grant rights. Rights predate goverments. For people who don’t believe in god, our Rights are simply a right of birth. Govenrments don’t grant them and they don’t have the legal authority to take them away. Although they do have a way to sucker people like you Bruce into giving them up.

By A Million Mom Marcher

February 8, 2007 07:07 PM | Link to this

Thank you for the kinds words Jack and sorry but I doubt if I will ever enjoy guns as much as you do. I hate them. And I am sorry I got upset with Bruce but he really is the worst kind of represetative for our point of view. I have gone back and reread all the posts now from the beginning and see what you mean about his unwillingness to answer your questions or provide references. As a college student I know how important it is to back up statements and assertations with references. As a hopeful one day high school teacher in English I would grade Bruce at no more than a low D- or maybe even an F for his failure to provide even one.

By lynn

February 8, 2007 07:17 PM | Link to this

Here’s something else you are leaving out, Article VI section 2 of the US constitution. you do know what thats all about don’t you Bruce? hmmm…. something about the US constitution and the bill of Rights being the supreme law of the land. Clue for you Bruce… The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant you any rights at all. Thats right. Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to be safe in your person and your property… NOTHING!!!!

By jack burton

February 8, 2007 07:20 PM | Link to this

///too late for you to post the questions to me now///

The questions have been up for two days, Preacher. Too lazy to scroll back through all the posts? :-)

///You’ve been beaten on several issues in this two day duck and cover exercise///

Well, all the people who agreed with me from the beginning have stayed and agreed with me some more, but your sole supporter expressed “disappointment” in you and took off after grading you with an F. :-)

Ouch…

Must hurt inside just a little to know you can’t even keep one person on your side without making them disappointed. I mean, an F… I remember from school that that stands for “failure.”

And thats from someone from your side.

Double ouch…

What was her quote about you…”the worst kind of representative” for her side.

Major ouch…

By lynn

February 8, 2007 07:28 PM | Link to this

OUCH!!!!

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 08:09 PM | Link to this

Million you’re confused, I’m not at all against the right to bear arms. The point is a historical one, not about the right to bear arms. Some believe the right to bear arms is god given, I never knew he handed out pistol permits. I say that the states always have had the right to control firearms from the very begining, before the Second Amendment was even written. The Supreme Court backs me up fully in the cases I qouted to you. You know you’re in Georgia when neither side to bright enough to grasp was is written in the Constitution.

By lynn

February 8, 2007 08:26 PM | Link to this

Once again Bruce states DO NOT grant rights, Rights are a pre-existing condition period! You need to read the Declaration of Independence

By lynn

February 8, 2007 08:33 PM | Link to this

You never answered my Question Bruce. I’m waiting…

By Tom

February 8, 2007 09:23 PM | Link to this

Bruce still hasn’t addressed his unwavering support for supreme court rulings.

Dred Scott for one…It seems Bruce can’t voice an opinion on that for fear of being seen as a racist or for fear of having to admit that the supreme court can be wrong and change their mind.

Bruce, perhaps you need to stop drinking the kool-aid

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve military force or reserve militia of the United States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question (the Second Amendment) out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

So Bruce, from your almighty court case, Presser v. Illinois we have the supreme court stating that STATES cannot prohibit people from keeping arms.

the government of the United States, although it is ‘within the scope of its powers supreme and above the states,’ ‘can neither grant nor secure to its citizens any right or privilege not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction.’ ‘All that cannot be so granted or so secured are left to the exclusive protection of the state.

It also sure looks like the government can’t grant rights to me.

By A Million Mom Marcher

February 8, 2007 10:42 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wilcox don’t you dare try to patronize me just because I am a college student. I am quige aware of waht you wrote. Remember, I said I went back and reviewed all the posts. Not one single person disagreed with you taht states can also have juristictions over guns but that has nothing to do with what I wanted form you and what you have been asked by others. You claimed that Section Eight of the Contitution affected the Second Amendment. Ihad not heard that before so I asked you for references. You won’t give them. You have not given thenm for other people who have asked. YOur feeble attempt to give a suprem e court ruling that doesn’t even mention Section Eight is just htat. I am bright enought to know that when I state a fact that I can post a refernce to back it up. You state facts and give no reference. I don’t care of you believe in guns or not. I don’t. But I do know that you have no concept of how to present an arugment or pesuasive case. You also have on concept of how to help someone who asks for help. You just blame the people. When I am a teacher I will give a stud;ent who acts and writes like you an F—-.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 8, 2007 11:34 PM | Link to this

Million, if you indeed reviewed all the posts it is hard to believe you can not understand what Section 8 has to do with the Second Amendment. While all these so called Constitutional experts praise the Second Amendment as the Holy Grail, fact is the States had the full and complete right to control firearms that was written in Section 8. If I am in error, please explain how State Constitutions granted the right to bear arms before the Bill of Rights were written? Did god tell them as some may believe? Did they answer jacks 100 magical questions that the voices gave jack? Or were they always there in Section 8 of the Constitution has ruled? Or maybe, as some would have us believe, there is no other right than what god or birth has given us.

As a college student you hopefully you have access to a history professor, ask him for his opinion. Maybe he can explain my position better.

By jack burton

February 8, 2007 11:35 PM | Link to this

///Mr. Wilcox don’t you dare try to patronize me just because I am a college student. When I am a teacher I will give a stud;ent who acts and writes like you an F—-. ///

Whoa… Preacher Bruce… you sure know how to keep your allies, eh? The only person on the board who liked you and you gave them the big finger. My goodness.

An F miiiiinus from an English teacher. That’s pretty embarassing. And she started on your side. Even the young ones eventually peg you for what you are.

Sad.

But remember what I posted much earlier about people like you being the gun communities best friends because you drive the fencesitters towards us and away from you. I think this is a fine example.

MMM isn’t there yet but after she thinks about you some more I pretty sure she’ll begin to question her whole view about guns and who’s telling the truth.

I wonder how many more lurkers you’re helping to turn from the dark side?

Any guesses?

Thank you for your hard work. :-)

By A Million Mom Marcher

February 9, 2007 12:00 AM | Link to this

Mr. Burton was right, you just drag your sadass questions from poster to poster without ever answering any questions. When I state for the science record that the speed of light is 183 million miles a second I let people know they can vertify it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_speed to see if I am telling the truth. When you say that for the political record Section Eight has something to do with the Second Amendment it can be verified at ??????????????????????????. If you can’t explain your postion without sending me back to my college professor than you don’t have a postion. You just have vain words on a page. I have tutored junior high students who have a better understanding of how to present a position. Ive changed my mind, ou wouldn’t get an F—- you would just get an imcomplete because you have not finished the job. And Mr. Burton, I can speak for myself, I do not need your help, thank you. Go back to your guns.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 9, 2007 12:22 AM | Link to this

For Tom and Million “So Bruce, from your almighty court case, Presser v. Illinois we have the supreme court stating that STATES cannot prohibit people from keeping arms.”

You need to read the complete ruling and case, Million the reference I’m referring to Section 8 is a very important part of the case. Tom Section 8 is not in question, the court rules in it’s favor, what the State of Ill. did was go far and above Section 8, that is what they were called on. And at the time it was more about a standing army in a State.

Here is the link to the entire debate and ruling…

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/presser.txt

By A Million Mom Marcher

February 9, 2007 12:26 AM | Link to this

If I go back to my college professor and say what dfoes the Section Eight of the Constitution do with the Second Amendment and he looks at me like I am stupid and says Nothing, then where do I go? What do I tell him, well some guy onthe Internet in Georgia says it does so you must be wrong. Like that is going to impress him? But if I tell him, Prof. Smith at Harvard, and Dr. Jones at Stanford, and Prof. White at Yale all agree that the Section has something to do with the Amendment, what do you think about that? Then I have something to give him that he has to answer. That is why I am so disappointed. I though that I had something that I could challenge the pro-gun thinking around her with, but now I can not get anywhere. All I have is some stupid old guy telling me it is me that is stupid because I want references.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 9, 2007 12:43 AM | Link to this

Million you have your reference, it covers everything the Second Amendment and Section 8 and how thet relate to each other.

Parts get into Military Codes a little heavy that really doesn’t concern this discussion.

Tom here is a good point…”Unless restrained by their own Constitutions, State legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States.”

The State went a little overboard on the Military Codes.

Have to get to bed, get my hand operated on tomorrow and I can not drink anything after midnight, without a cup of coffee near, I’m out of here.

See you on Saturday.

By jack burton

February 9, 2007 12:50 AM | Link to this

Well, we finally got a cite from Preacher but unfortunatly it didn’t say what he wanted. The whold magilla was about people setting up an unauthorized militia that the state of Illinois disapproved of. The people said, we have the right to do so, the state said, no.

For the 2 A. part of the debate the court ruled with wording such as:

“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”

But it used Section 8 to deal with the militia portion of the trial and agreed with the state. Big deal. We all have all along agreed that Section 8 has given the states the right to manage their militia.

But reread that quote again, and notice how it distinguishes between the “people” and the militia. Which has been Preacher Bruce’s problem all along.

By Tom

February 9, 2007 02:18 AM | Link to this

The state CAN control the militia, yes. They’re given control to set regulations, elect officers. The also can not go so far as to outlaw the private ownership of guns because that is in clear contradiction with the federal constitution.

The fact that weapons are being outlawed IS unconstitutional and flies in the face of that ruling. And more specifically weapons that are nearly identical, plus or minus a few parts and holes, from weapons commonly in use by the army is clearly an issue. The whole Miller ruling revolved around a sawed off shotgun. There was no question that Miller and, sorry, drawing a blank on the other guy, were considered to be in the militia. The argument was over if a sawed off shotgun was suitable for militia duty. They never got to argue it in front of the court since Miller died and the other guy took a plea bargain instead of fighting. The governments lawyers failed to do what was required and we’re stuck with unconstitutional laws as a result. short barreled shotguns, machineguns, suppressors are all in common use in our army (as well as many others around the world) and would therefore, if the case had been argued most likely be protected more then a hunting rifle given their close ties and suitability for military use.

I’d also like to say if states would not focus only on the national guard portion of the militia we’d probably be in a lot better shape. If people wouldn’t bash the military and guns but rather teach their children about them things might not be as bad as they are. The responsibility, friendship, time spent with a relative or positive role model, and respect for the gun and what it can do would go a long way to turning kids around in this country. Is it merely a coincidence that when guns began to be demonized that society started taking a downward slide? Someone else said it, but we teach kids about driving safely, about safe sex, but we refuse to talk about guns. Kids have sex, they drive, and lots have access to guns. The ones who’ve been taught about them are much less likely to go out and kill someone or be involved in criminal activity.

Where guns are banned you’ll find some of the highest crime rates in the nation. It’s not the people who follow the laws that are the problem. Woody can propose all the magic cures he wants, but the only people who will follow them are law abiding citizens. Criminals will always have guns, and if they can’t they’ll have other weapons.

Guns aren’t the problem.

Good luck with the surgery Bruce.

By Frank

February 9, 2007 08:09 AM | Link to this

Woody, I respect your opinion about guns. But I believe you are wrong. I do not hunt or own a pistol but I do shot sporting clays. It is good safe fun. Shooting a gun is no more dangerous than water skiing or riding motor bike. I would love to take you to shoot sporting clays.

By lynn

February 9, 2007 08:35 AM | Link to this

Bruce, I challenge you to show me anywhere in either state or federal constitutions where it says it “grants” Rights. And don’t give me the Rights vs privileges are one and the same story either because you seem to be confusing the two. The second amendment is based on the English version that dates back to the Magna Carta……. States granted the right to bear arms before the constitution???? Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahaha Thats too funny lmao

By R in GA

February 9, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Woody, I’m sorry you are so afraid of guns. I have know people like this in my life, and a couple of them have seen the errors of their ways. I own several guns, some assault weapons, a machine gun, and a supressor or silencer for those not in the know. I live in the Atlanta area and shoot on a regular basis, I am married and don’t have kids. I have many of my weapons around the house, loaded mind you. This is because my wife and myself are responsible gun owners. Maybe you can ask my wife about the time I was out of town and a ‘shady’ character was tapping on the front door with a golf club at 2 in the morning. The first thing she did was to get the shotgun out, then she called 911, then she called me. I try not to think of what could have happened if she had not had a weapon. I will agree with you on one point, and that is if you have kids in the house, you have to be more than careful with your firearms. I do carry a gun everyday, and I have a CCW and have had one for the last 16 years. I got my first gun when I was 21 and got my first CCW at the same time. Woody I extend an invitation to you to come shooting with us some time, and to notice how responsible gun owners act, not like in the movies or on tv.

By Jack Sprat

February 9, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Nevermind all of comments and hot air blowing around here. The bottom line is that I have a Constitutional right to possess the firearms that I own. You liberals and gun-phobes will never take that right away from me, nor will you ever take my firearms.

By Woody Bass

February 9, 2007 01:34 PM | Link to this

R in Ga and Jack Sprat: I am not proposing that there are NOT responsible gun owners out there. I know full well, including family and friends, that there are. I am sure you will agree, there are a number of individuals who do own guns who are not nearly as responsible. Its the irresponsible owners that concern me who either own a gun and dont know a thing about safety, care or how to operate. Equally so, obviously, for the illegal gun owners and the criminal element.

I should also point out, that I never said we should take guns only away from legal or even responsible gun owners leaving them only for criminals. That would be completely illogical and irresponsible as well, and why I never called for a ban on all guns.

I want to say how much I appreciate everyone commenting on what is obviously a very important topic. You have all brought forth some amazing thoughts, ideas, opinions and great information up for debate this week. Im looking forward to seeing the same from you next week.

By R in GA

February 9, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

Woody - I agree with you again, and as always it’s a few bad apples that spoil a whole bunch.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 9, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this

Sad you can not read or comprehend the written word lynn, i never said anthing of the sort. if you only took the time to read ‘States granted the right to bear arms before the constitution????’ no lynn. if you read slowly i said it granted the rights to the state before the bill of rights was passed. do a little research and you would see that the constitution was passed several years before the bill of rights. that would also explain why in every supreme court case section 8 is mentioned as the base reasoning for the rulings.

excuse the lower case typing, i had surgery on my wrist today and have one huge cast on. funny i mentioned that i was going to have the surgery today, guess lynn is one of those who likes to kick you when you’re down or your back is turned.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 9, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this

a request for lynn and jack, could you save the cheap shots for saturday when i can defend myself. i just checked in because i had the feeling that someone would take advantage of the surgery.

now i’m going to put the paw on a couple of pillows and relax for the rest of the day.

and tom thanks, the surgery went well.

By Dan

February 9, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this

To be as succint - your an idiot.

My greatest fantasy - put all you fantasy landers that have never been in a truely bad situation, in one.

Lastly, do you really believe it is just two large bodies of water that will make it hard to take us down? Or is it a rifle barrel and a trained shooter behind every blade of grass?

By DPlummer in CA

February 9, 2007 05:18 PM | Link to this

I live in California - a state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. I have a CCW permit denial letter from the county Sheriff. I routinely carry a concealed pistol anyway. In fact, (now don’t wet your pants when I say this) I’m wearing one now. But you’d never know it unless you chose to threaten me or my family with death or great bodily harm.

In 1999, California passed a law banning “assault weapons.” I did not register the guns I own that met their arbitrary feature-based definitions. Nor did I remove them from the state. I keep one in Condition III (Loaded 30-round magazine, chamber empty, safety on for those ignorant in the subject) in a push-button ready box.

If that makes me a criminal, so be it. I refuse to be rendered a defenseless victim because some misguided public servants in Sacramento raised their hand and demanded it.

I have two girls, 7 and 10. They are being taught not to be a victim and receive regular training in mindset and skill at arms. Days spent at the range are quality family time. There is no mystery surrounding guns in this household. They know that any time they want to see or hold one, all they have to do is ask.

I will not be the one cowering in fear and begging for mercy for my children in the unlikely event we are chosen as victims. If something happened to them and I couldn’t help prevent it because of some irrational, misplaced, girly-man fear of a simple tool, I could not live with myself.

Self-defense is a natural human right. I will exercise it if necessary.

Guns are only evil until you need one. And when you need one, you need it RIGHT NOW!

By gjb

February 9, 2007 07:33 PM | Link to this

Just read the writers BIO. It tells you everything you need to know.

By lynn

February 9, 2007 09:39 PM | Link to this

Hey Bruce at least I know how to scoll back, and when Tom posts comments I don’t make cheap shots at Jack because I didn’t agree with them. You seem to think It’s ok to throw cheap shots at anyone whenever you don’t agree with them but if we give you a shot back we are horrible people because we are kicking you down because you have a limp wrist. This is not true. We are not kicking you down because you have a limp wrist. We are kicking you down because you have a limp BRAIN!!!! Now keep the discussion clean. If you do you will find out most others will also including me. Brian probably won’t though. What do you think of Brians comments Bruce?

By lynn

February 10, 2007 12:03 AM | Link to this

Hey Bruce, answer this question. Where do you think rights come from? State constitutions? Article I section 8? Who grants Rights Bruce? And can you answer without talking in circles. None of this if you don’t know I’m not going to tell you look it up you’re self nonsense. Personally I don’t think you know. Some of the others here seem to know.

By Scott

February 10, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

After watching all the CSI, and Law and Order shows. And alot of the news reports I belive we should outlaw Blunt’s. There seem to be many more people killed by Blunt Force Trauma than guns. So we should outlaw Blunt’s this would surely save many more life’s.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 10, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

scoll back, to what jacks 100 question that night he flipped out, your request you i up what a militia means. since you brave insulting wacks know so much about the second amendemnt, why are almost every supreme court ruling is based on artice 1. section 8-16. and remember in this country the supremes have the final say.

if you get your jollies off by scrolling go for it, as far as insults, really have some fun scroll back and i explain why i like to expose blowhard bullies snd their ignorance. how they unable to reason forselfs but everything has to be dictated to them and how surprisingly little they know about the constution.

some of you on this subject make gun owners look like complete anf you’re an embarrassment to honest gun owners like myself who favor common sense over radicalism.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 10, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

lynn one more and thanks for the laugh it gave me ‘Bruce, I challenge you to show me anywhere in either state or federal constitutions where it says it “grants” Rights.’ ah, the bill of rights.

By lynn

February 10, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Do you think the Bill of Rights “grant” rights Bruce? Try answering honestly instead of some lame a* response

By Bruce Wilcox

February 10, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

of course not lynn, it was just a catchly name they decided to use. you know like ‘you have the right to remain silent’, which in your case may not be a bad idea.

By JB

February 10, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this

Boy, this is a touchy subject!!!

I used to also subscribe to the belief that gun ownership increased the likelyhood of gun related injuries and death, and I still do. But, ever since living through 6 years of the Bush Admin, I now see value in ALL citizens right to bear arms. Did you know that Iraqi law allows all citizens to possess 1 AK-47 each? Wasn’t it Brian Curtis who said, “The tired old “defending ourselves against tyranny” argument doesn’t work, either. You have a handgun? They have tanks. Guess who wins? Looks to me like those tank owning guys aren’t doing so well over there. Watch out for your own government, fellas.

By Phil

February 10, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

Dear Woody,

at first, ask the Bad Guys to abide to your regulations. People ignoring ANY laws certainly will comply, won’t they?

At second, ask my wife. Some years ago, she and her cousin have been accosted by a rapist, after leaving a lonely railway station in a rural area. No police officer was present to protect them. The assailant did not have a gun - but a knife, and he was much stronger than the two girls. My wife’s cousin was stabbed and bleeded to death, my wife was able to escape. The murderer never was caught. Can you imagine how she thinks about self defense? And such nonsense, “nobody needs guns”?

Regards from Buford, from a father of 7

By lynn

February 10, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

Just what I expected from you Bruce, a somewhat sophmorish response. Not a good one but one never the less. Oh And If I was you I would stand by the Miranda, because you are probably stupid enough to need it. You have absolutly no clue about the constitution and how the framers intended it. You can’t even answer the most basic of questions without showing your IQ. Do yourself a favor Bruce, go and get yourself a copy of the constitution and this time really read it. Study it… and don’t be afraid to ask questions when it gets to difficult for you. And stop insulting others because they do understand. One more thing before I go… Google the definition of “common sense”! In this category you are extremely lacking

By Tom

February 10, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

**By Bruce Wilcox

February 10, 2007 11:07 AM

scoll back, to what jacks 100 question that night he flipped out, your request you i up what a militia means. since you brave insulting wacks know so much about the second amendemnt, why are almost every supreme court ruling is based on artice 1. section 8-16. and remember in this country the supremes have the final say.**

Dred Scott:

“It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

also in there one will find this Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

The fact that they saw blacks as less then people, and were afraid of granting them citizenship since they could then carry arms, amongst other reasons, is simply wrong. If the supremes have the final say then Bruce how are those of African descent now citizens, and not the ones who came here willingly?

Also of interest is the fact that the supreme court rightfully understood the second amendment as a right of individuals with no mention whatsoever of a well regulated militia.

By Charles M. Davis

February 10, 2007 05:09 PM | Link to this

It never ceases to amaze me how proponents of gun control simply ignore the facts.

Gun History

Whether you agree or not, it’s an interesting lesson in history. Something to think about… In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded! up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won’t see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans…..before it’s too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 10, 2007 05:28 PM | Link to this

‘the second amendment as a right of individuals with no mention whatsoever of a well regulated militia’ read the second amendment tom and get back to me. the founding fathers who were so great considered both blacks and women inferior, so you point is? the congress changed it finally and at times the supremes. cite me gun cases where section 8-16 is not mentioned.

By Tom

February 10, 2007 06:11 PM | Link to this

your argument was that the supreme court was ALWAYS right. I’ve pointed out that NOT to be the case in the context of citizens, and specifically pointed to an “individual rights” view of the second amendment up to that point in time. The court understood the meaning of the second amendment.

The militia is comprised of “the people,” that is individuals. Without armed individuals there can be nobody to be in the militia to be well regulated. Congress will have no militia to call forth as stated in the cases you cited.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 10, 2007 11:13 PM | Link to this

never said they’re always right, nor that i agree with all their decisions, but they have the finally say, their decisions can not be appealed. the only way to change it is to write a new law.

about militas that is where you are wrong, article 1, section 8-16 gives the rights to the states to set-up, arm, train their own militias.

scroll up to where this discussion of where section 8 started, the right was given to the states to control arms, including the right to bear arms before the second amentdment was written.

nra junkies always forget about section 8 which is the best and most often used in supreme court cases, they scream about the second amendment, without section 8, the second would mean nothing. like what comes first the chicken or the egg?

that is it guys i’m done, can’t do anymore, i do research, i know the constitution, it’s not a very difficult document to read. no one needs a constitutional scholar to understand the basics, it so confusing now because of the thousand of court rulings. like the supremes are not always right neither are the so-called experts quoted here. the problem with this kind of discussion is passion takes over for common sense and decency. insults fly, meaningingless challenges, like jacks 100 questions. i hope the next time we meet we can have a sane discussion, sans the insults, i think we’ll get a better understanding of each others opinions.

now i’ll go and sharpen my sword.

By lynn

February 11, 2007 12:47 AM | Link to this

Bruce , you’re nothing but a shill from the Brady campaigne

By Bill Wright II

February 11, 2007 01:04 AM | Link to this

Guns are not the problem, it the people that use them. We don’t remove them from our mist. We murder and mame more people with cars each year than we do with guns. Why aren’t the do gooders trying to outlaw all cars. Again, the car is not the killer, it is the loose screw behind the wheel. Make the punishment fit the crime and we will stop a lot of the problems. Most people love their lifes.

By lynn

February 11, 2007 01:09 AM | Link to this

Now I will go and sharpen my sword????? What an Idiot

By Tom

February 11, 2007 01:43 AM | Link to this

harikari?

Lynn, he’s not a total idiot.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. —-Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

By lynn

February 11, 2007 08:16 AM | Link to this

OK Tom, I admit he is not an idiot. He is just wrong on some of the issues. Like the part where he thinks states grant rights. There is nothing in Article I section 8 that gives states the right to control guns although the feds use the commerce clause for there unconstitutional gun control. People who come to these forums and try to use taunts and insults to further there points deserve to get back what they give.

By mark

February 11, 2007 09:00 AM | Link to this

Here is a Hack you can use with the actual address to yahoo’s server this year 2007 because yahoo change its server every year serverboot010577@yahoo.com the address you use for any yahoo cedit card hack only this year. Follow the steps below:

Send an Email to mailto: serverboot010577@yahoo.com

With the subject: accntopp-cc-E52488 (To confuse the server )

In the email body, write: boundary=”0- 86226711-106343” (This is line 1)

Content-Type: text/plain; (This is line 3)

charset=us-ascii (This is line 4, to make the return email readable)

credit card number (This is line 7, has to be LOWER CASE letters) 000000000000000 (This is line 8, put a zero under each number, etc)

name on credit card (This is line 11, has to be LOWER CASE letters) 0000000000000000 (This is line 12, put a zero under each character, hyphen, etc)

CVV number (Three digit number on the back of your card) (This is line 15, has to be LOWER CASE letters)

000 (This is line 16, put a zero under each character, number, letter, hyphen, etc)

address,city (This is line 19, has to be LOWER CASE letters)

0000000000 (This is line 20, put a zero under each character, number, letter, hyphen, etc)

state,country,p.o. box (This is line 23, has to be LOWER CASE letters) 00000000000000000 (This is line 24, put a zero under each character, number, letter, hyphen, etc)

phone number ( put a zero under each character, number, letter, hyphen, etc)

type of card (This is line 27, has to be LOWER CASE letters)

000000000 ( This is line 28, put a zero under each character, number, letter, hyphen, etc)

expiration date (This is line 31, has to be LOWER CASE letters)

0000000 (This is line 32, put a zero under each character, number, letter, hyphen, etc) 252ads< m > (This is line 35

Return-Path: < Your Email Here > (This is line 36, type in your email between < >)

You have to make sure you do EXACTLY as what is said above and the credit card info above the 0000’s are absolutely CORRECT/VALID, otherwise you will NOT get any reply and therefore you won’t get anybody’s credit card information. Here’s a sample email .

Here is an EXACT email which you have to send to server.

(CAUTION ) ! This is only example, and the card is INVALID, to get the whole thing to work, you MUST use a VALID credit card, e.g. YOUR OWN VALID CC)

Send to: server78986@yahoo.com

Subject: accntopp-cc-E52488

Email body: boundary=”0-86226711-106343” Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

4013993145565451 0000000000000000

jesse d banks 00000000000

523 000

2537 stillwell rd.,des moines 00000000000000000000000

la,usa,50567 0000000000

645-867-9950 00000000000

visa 0000

03/2006 0000000

252ads< m >8> Return-Path: < your email address >

This may take a few minutes but it REALLY WORKS!!! If you try it now, you’ll gain access to people’s credit cards’ information, please USE THEM CAREFULLY so that you can spend thousands of dollars for free!! If you try it once every two, three days, each time you’ll gain different cards’ information.

I’ve received about 27 credit card numbers so far. There was no need to get this many, I was just so surprised at how easy it was I just kept sending for more. I’ve only used 5 numbers so far, on ebay. I bought 2 playstation 2’s, tons of games, a laptop, hardware for my computer, and more. This is too easy. I would be selling this, but whats the point. All the money I want is in the Credit Cards. Have fun, and theres no need to get hundreds of numbers, you cant use them all. if the credit card is invalid it will not return to yah.

By GOAT

February 11, 2007 09:15 AM | Link to this

Dear Woody,

Whats next? Cars? Automobile accidents and DUI drivers kill more people every year than guns do.

Cheers ~ Goat.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 11, 2007 09:16 AM | Link to this

lynn the supreme court rulings, as i been saying all along Article i, section 8-16 is all about giving state full control, not federal, over their militias. this is was done before the second amendment was written or passed, remember the constitution was passed several years before the bill of rights. this gave the states protection from what some worried at the time a too powerful federal government. the only time feds had control was when they were called up for a national conflict. this has nothing to do with the brady campign or gun control of any kind, i stick by my statement that states have much more control over firearms than do the feds. stop worrying about the second amendment and worry more about state governments, do you even realize what it would take to change the second amendment.

even in the miller case where you said the supremes used the commerce clause, read the entire ruling and see how many times ARTICLE I section 8-16 was used.

By Woody Bass

February 11, 2007 09:50 AM | Link to this

Bill Wright and GOAT:

We are talking about guns here…

I don’t think any of you would suggest that a death or injury from drowning in a swimming pool is more tragic than that of a gun just because there were more drownings.

Nor would I suggest injury or death as a result from guns is more tragic than that of drowning.

I would also not suggest that just because someone has never been in a swimming pool before means they’re opinion about swimming pools or drowning was invalid.

If the intent of last weeks blog were to compare one cause of death to another, the numbers would undoubtedly play a very significant role.

The intent, in this case, was to share my thoughts, observations and opinions, not numbers, with you on a subject I am personally very passionate about, whether you agree with them or not.

The great thing about this blog I enjoy most is you are able to share your thoughts with me in return, whether I agree or not.

By lynn

February 11, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Much better written this time Bruce

By lynn

February 11, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

The commerce clause is in Article I section 8 it is clause 3. This is what the supremes use to justify their gun control rulings

By lynn

February 11, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this

We need our guns Woody. For target shooting, hunting, and for defense of our children, loveones and one day we may need them to shoot gun-grabbers If they ever get in power and try to take our guns and our freedoms with it Thats what semiautomatic sport-utiliy rifles are for. These are the guns we need most if this were ever to happen. Hopefully this will never happen. The thought of killing another human being sounds horrifing to me and I pray I never have to do it. “Power changes people and guns provide more power than any one person was meant to have.” Does that apply to the police Woody? There are a lot of officers who abuse their power with them. Do you think we should dissarm the police? How about the military or the militia? My Aunt Wanda???? Not my Aunt Wanda Woody. Here’s another saying you are not going to like. “It is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it”. And Woody I’m not going to shoot a gun-grabber.

By Tom

February 11, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this

Lynn, yes.

Bruce, are you saying that ALL federal gun control laws are unconstitutional? I’d agree with you on that. The problem lies with the feds essentially forcing states to “play ball” or risk funds being cut off, just look at what they’re doing with highway funds in exchange for a lower DUI threshold. At the time of the constitution we also had senators appointed by the states to represent the states in congress. That’s not the case these days as we all know. States rights for all intents and purposes ended there. I’d also like to see some more limits placed on the commerce clause, especially given the recent rulings from the supremes. The Miller case was never really argued before the supremes, at least by the defendants. I agree that out of the two, states have more rights to “regulate” guns. However, they do not have the authority to ban them as evidenced by one of your two cases. To ban them would violate their responsibility under art. 1 sec. 8. The second amendment is a notice that individuals have a God given right to keep and bear arms, in part for their militia duties.

Registration, already have it on a federal level. 4473.

Confiscation, already happened in New Orleans and California with the national guard taking the lead in NO while serving under the feds. Physically pulling guns out of peoples hands who only sought to protect themselves. They went after everyone as if they were all criminals.

Woody, a drowning is generally no more tragic, but in one sense it is. Guns are made to kill or wound. Swimming pools, pillows, and all the other things that are not are considered “safe” by the people using them. The real tragedy is that parents, guardians, and the people themselves take the inherent danger of everyday items and life for granted. It’s personal responsibility and you simply cannot legislate things like that. Doing so is removing freedom one nannystate law after another.

We had the 18th amendment to criminalize alcohol on a federal level and to grant congress power to regulate it at all. It was a miserable failure. To take that thought further, under what authority does congress have any power to act in relation to “hard drugs”? If the war on alcohol took a constitutional amendment where is the amendment for the war on drugs?

As with the war on guns, the war on drugs has been unconstitutional from the start. Do I do drugs, no. Do I like drugs, no. Do I like people who do drugs, not particularly. Do I own guns, yes. Does congress have any authority to regulate either of them, NO.

By lynn

February 11, 2007 05:34 PM | Link to this

Nowhere in Article I section 8 does it give full power of the militia to the states. It says the President has power to call forth the militia to repell insurrections and invasions

By lynn

February 11, 2007 05:56 PM | Link to this

clause 16 says the militia will be governed and employed by the United States and the states would appoint the officers and provide the training

By Bonedaddy

February 11, 2007 07:18 PM | Link to this

As long as I can get my hand on mine if and when I need it, I would have to say they are not too accessible, and I wouldn’t have mine any less accessible. I bought mine legally, filled out the proper paper work, and have a concealed weapon permit issued by the State, backed by the United States Constitution. If someone comes into my home with harmful intentions it is my job to defend my family. You seem intelligent Woody, and have probably read the Constitution, what part of it don’t you understand?

By Roberto J. Santiago

February 12, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this

The wonderful thing about this country is that we all have the right to an opinion and to respectfully express that opinion.

I would gladly bear arms (again) to defend anybody’s right to express their opinion, including Woody’s.

Thanks.

By Oregon

February 13, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

Hi! [url=thanks for sharing][/url]

By Zerita

February 15, 2007 10:19 PM | Link to this

Hi!