Enough! Nobody Wants to Take Away Your Damn Guns!


New Crazy NRA President Jim Porter

Reading some of these comments coming from the NRA convention in Houston has pushed me to a point where I must vent.  Honestly, the insanity being spewed by these people would be laughable if millions of Americans didn’t agree with them.

Have you heard about the new NRA President?  Holy crap, talk about a complete jackass.  This man is an attorney for a firm which specializes in defending gun manufacturers, has called Obama a “fake President” (aka a birther) and has said the Civil War was “the war of northern aggression”—you know, what supporters of the Confederacy often called it.

I mean come on.  The NRA has a new birther President who thinks President Obama isn’t an American, thinks the Confederate states had the right to own slaves (apparently Lincoln was a tyrant) and believes all Americans should be military trained to fight against tyranny.

I would have some witty remark to follow that up with, but I don’t think it’s necessary.  This level of crazy speaks for itself.

But what I will do is repeat something I’ve said plenty of times.  President Obama does not  want to take away your damn guns.

No, the the Second Amendment isn’t under attack.

Under the plan Obama spoke of back in January you could still own thousands of guns. You could still own bullets. Hell, you could still own semi-automatics.  There was absolutely no limit on how many guns you could own.

What Obama proposed was the same assault weapon ban we had until just a few years ago.  Did the world end, and tyranny take over, because of this ban?  No.  It’s the very same ban George W. Bush has been quoted as saying he felt should have been renewed in 2004.  A ban on the same weapons George H. Bush and Ronald Reagan both said had no place in the hands of ordinary civilians.

President Obama also said he supported a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.  You don’t need more than 10 bullets to hunt or defend yourself—and if you do, you probably shouldn’t be operating any kind of firearms to begin with.

Sorry sport shooters, I can’t support high-capacity magazines simply for sport shooting.  Ranges can be allowed to own these for sport purposes, but they shouldn’t be privately owned.

He also supported universal background checks.  What kind of delusional fools oppose a background check for all gun purchases?  Well, we know which Senators oppose this law.  Thankfully over 80% of Americans don’t.  But seriously, you can’t even debate against universal background checks and if you try, you’re just proving your own ignorance.

Another thing he proposed was funding for enhanced resources to prevent mentally ill people from obtaining guns.  Again, what imbecile opposes actions that seek to prevent mentally ill individuals from obtaining dangerous weapons?

He said we need increased funding for more law enforcement officers, funding to provide researchers the resources to study why people do these heinous acts and funding for schools to have armed security on campus if they so wish.

None of that is an attack on the Second Amendment, it’s called using common sense.

Just because our Constitution gives us a right, doesn’t mean that right can’t have problems that need solutions.  I support the right for gun ownership as a gun owner myself, but I also support sensible regulations of that right to try and prevent some of these horrific acts of violence.

Here’s my example of the difference between a liberal and a conservative talking about guns:

  • Liberal: I believe in sensible gun regulations that limit high-capacity magazines and some semi-automatic rifles.  I believe that Americans have the right to own handguns for self-defense and rifles for hunting.  However, I believe the selling of guns and their ammunition should be regulated with background checks to ensure the wrong people can’t simply walk into a gun show or their local Walmart and illegally purchase these items.
  • Conservative: Socialist liberals just want to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.  You know Hitler banned guns too, right?  Bacon kills people every year, guess you people believe we should ban bacon?  Obesity kills people every day, should we ban the spoons people use to eat with?  Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.  The only way to stop bad people with guns, are good people with guns.  Our government fears an armed populace!  You’ll get my guns when you take them from my cold dead hands.

Do you see the difference?  I know it’s subtle.

These people at this NRA convention are lunatics.  Mentally ill psychopaths who have an unhealthy worship of inanimate objects and suffer from delusional paranoia of damn near everything.

They argue that guns aren’t the problem, people are the problem.  You know, they might be somewhat right—these people are the damn problem.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • …There was then the possibility of a reasonable creature, however, equipped with word: as logical, my first thought was a parrot, but the point he was replaced by a raven, which is also equipped with word and it is infinitely more in keeping with the desired tone in the poem…


  • A provocative text !.I thing that opinionated individual must analyze things and decide, if possible, who is first, the chicken or the egg …

    • People or government? If people came first, then how in the world does government “grant” rights to the very people who created it? The answer is, they can’t, they can only infringe on the rights of the people.

  • Guest

    A provocative text that opinionated individual must analyze things and decide, if possible, who is first, the chicken or the egg …


    {- What do we assembled in the agora?

    Is that the barbarians are to arrive today.

    – Why such inaction in the Senate?

    Why are not legislate Senators?

    Because the barbarians are to arrive today.

    What laws will be doing and the Senators?

    The barbarians when they arrive legislate }


    • …what?

      • I thought the same exact thing when I read that comment…

      • translator

        i translated it with google translate. into icelandic and back. i think its more clear now, dont you?

        Gathered in the bazaar?

        Barbarians arrived today.

        Why omissions in the Senate?

        Why do not legislate Senator?

        As barbarians coming today.

        What are the legal and Senator?

        When their legislation Barbarian

      • Oh Yes!

    • kb7rky

      Did you have a stroke while you were typing that?

      • Because so aggressively kk7rkky ?.’re In a place to comment on the weapons and violence.

        I just look at Vallejo cholo, my compatriot and try to put some beautiful poetry, heartfelt poetry in this place,,, anyone agredo No, not write in English and use Tralade of Google …

        As Tanner hire barbarians?

  • The Southern end of the American Right Wing makes a ridiculous spectacle of itself on a regular basis. Unfortunately for the USA, it also make the whole country look insane to the rest of the world. Really, we watch the antics and theatrics of the NRA, the Tea Party, the GOP, and can’t quite comprehend that so many stupid Americans spew mental garbage all over the country and get away with it.
    I think the USA is the only nation in the developed, free world with such a huge chunk of mentally ill people who presume to control the country and who are so oblivious to the harm they cause.
    Eisenhower would be horrified to see what a dishonest joke the Republican Party has become. I suspect even Reagan would be dumbfounded to see how many really stupid Americans have attached their crazy agendas to his Party and his name.

    • Not all southerners are right wing, thank-you. i am appalled by the way some gun owners have behaved during this debate. What angers me most is how people reacted shortly after the school shooting in Connecticut. People were going out in their backyards and firing their guns up in the air to prove that nobody was going to take them away, I guess? I thought it was an ignorant, irresponsible response to an American tragedy. I don’t even own a gun & I have now desire to. Please be careful how you talk about the Southern end. Not all of us are gun totin’ rednecks. Careful how you pigeon hole. I’m certainly not a republican and I’m no Right Wing, either.

      • really

        Yes, clearly you are not “The southern end of the american right wing”. So congratulations about all the things you said about yourself. But she wasn’t talking about you =]

      • Well, I do live on the “southern end” and she did generalize. So I spoke up. By the way, I wasn’t talking to you either. =)

      • Rick Adams

        exactly. if anyone should be careful about pigeon holing Southern people it is most certainly the these NRA and Southern GOP right wing nuts, not Liberal Democrats. We are all too aware that there are progressive Southern people doing the right things for this country and we support you.

      • If you call yourselves progressive you are not doing things that are right for America.

      • Now what is the reason for this remark?

      • jchastn

        This nation needs to regress back to the 18th Century when women were property, and only land owning, White men were able to vote. Or anything else. Yes, I think that you should start the new political movement, called Regressivism!!

      • You make a fair point Deedie. I think it’s someting that needs to be focused on and talked about more. We’re all too busy pigeon holing the people we disagree with. ON BOTH SIDES of the arguement.

      • I’m with you, Deedie Fay. Born and reared in South Carolina, and a proud, progressive Democrat!! I own guns for hunting and home protection, but I’m not a moronic NRA member. The ultra righties which comprise the NRA are merely lunatics who want to shoot people and call it “standing my ground”. They are the bastard sons and daughters of the KKK!!!

      • John Gavel

        I can assure you I am not the bastard son of a member of the KKK- thats a pretty bold/ridiculous statement. Youre not moronic huh?

        I joined the nra because its an organization which was founded in the 1800s, which has not only taught/trained its members and civilians but also law enforcement. As the gun debate has taken form, the nra has positioned itself behind the gun owner, lobbying for the gun owner and protecting the gun owner. But most of its history and heritage is preserving and educating firearms. Dont believe me- go check out their museum in the DC area. Not everyone who is a republican, gun owner and member of the nra is a lunatic- some are most likely your dr, lawyer or accountants and id say friends but that may be a stretch. But you keep going around saying you arent a moron but then spew those moronic statements-classic

      • BackSeatJesus

        Actually, as the gun debate has taken form, seems like the NRA has taken a cue from Mitch McConnell and has decided to not back the president on anything . This, given the fact that under previous administrations, the NRA backed the process of background checks, but since THIS president wants it, they say, hell no.

      • John Gavel

        What does that have to do with its members being part of the KKK? You do realize there is already back ground checks when you purchase a weapon- even online. It goes to a licensed dealer and in order to receive the weapon you must be cleared by- you guessed it- a background check. called nics- google it

      • Then why is the NRA screaming about background checks being wrong and spending so much money lobbying against them?

      • John Gavel

        Google western ny man has guns wrongfully confiscated then you will see why the NRA id standing up for our rights

      • Or the vet in tx that had his AR15 taken while he was out on a hike with his son. The cop on video said they had to arrest him because the public is scared of a rifle.

      • Gabapentin

        Oh look, a crying Nazi.

      • Thomas Medford

        Because some people live pretty far from a gun store. It’s also because in some jurisdictions, the background check costs as much as $150 per firearm. And some require an additional hold. And of course the biggest reason the NRA and the ACLU both opposed the legislation was that it forced local gun stores to maintain the records of those private sales. It is obvious that it was a de-facto registration.

      • Thomas Medford

        No, you don’t get it. The NRA proposed a bill with background checks expanded. It was when they decided that the records had to be permanently maintained that the NRA fought it. As did the ACLU. And you know it has to be over the top if you get both the NRA and the ACLU on the same side.

      • Dan Kistner

        You are a moron, if you still belong to the NRA. End of story. The NRA today supports the gun makers. They are pushing sales of assault rifles, because the numbers of hunters goes down more, each year, so they are making up their sales with assault rifles. How often, do you go hunting with an assault rifle? 85% of NRA members, are behind background checks. The only ones that shouldn’t be, are the criminals, and the mentally ill. If you are against background checks, which group do you belong to? Wayne LaPierre was declared mentally unfit to serve in the military, but he was the head of the NRA? Wow, are you a moron. Only 6 million guns were manufactured worldwide in 2007, while in 2011, The US firearms industry manufactured over 8 million guns.

      • Bine646

        Wait? Do you think im a moron haha? Yawnnnn move on bro- not changing my mind or taking away my membership- along w the millions of other individuals who are members

      • liberalssuck

        Funny since the 90’s we had less then 100 million firearms now we are close to 300 million and ozero has been the best gun seller in the last couple of years. . So your numbers are a little off. Also your interpretation of the second has been proven wrong. It means the people should be familiar and proficient with their firearms. Now since several state democrats in I think ny was caught saying the goal was confiscation. So yea that is what you want and hunters has not been declining. Nice try there.

      • George L Smith III

        The Second Amendment was ALWAYS about an individuals right to protect themselves.. and if you are the student of history you claim to be, you should have looked up the Supreme Courts refusal to deal with the Second Amendment through out most of its existence… Which is why the false impression your displaying has been touted by politicians and the anti-gun crowd for decades, by creating laws restricting a persons right to defend themselves, that is until it was cleared up by the 2008 ruling; Perhaps you should read both the federalist and anti-federalist papers, where the founding fathers publicly debated the Constitution… if your open minded; you will realize that the right to life is paramount, self evident and inalienable; our founding fathers made it perfectly clear that no one should have the authority to restrict which tools are necessary for you to protect your life. They also realized that the threat of tyranny is ever present especially, when one group of men rule over another, the population needed the tools protect themselves from an overreaching government; The Supreme Court backed that up in Miller v USA, 1939 when they specified that because a short barreled shotgun wasn’t part of the military’s inventory, the government could TAX it. Don’t take my word for this, read it for yourself… those documents are freely accessed online…

      • ArmedPatriot

        gun makers dont exist without gun buyers moron.
        WE ARE the NRA…

      • Heymaker

        85% of NRA members support background checks so long as records of those checks aren’t used to create a de facto registry. An important distinction you’ve conveniently omitted.

      • ClemCadidlhoper

        The NRA used to be all the good things you stated, Bine646, but from everything I’ve read, the NRA is now only positioned behind the gun manufacturers who are the only “people” who would be hurt by sensible gun regulations!

      • ArmedPatriot

        gun makers dont exist without gun buyers moron.
        WE ARE the NRA

      • Golfer1

        You state “But most of its history and heritage is preserving and educating firearms”. How do you, educate firearms? Tell the weapon to sit in the corner. That works well till a person picks it up and pulls the trigger. Then what? Bad gun or bad person?????

      • Bine646

        Lets be serious here pal- you that dense or just that bored?

      • Golfer1

        First of all, not your pal, your that dense, NRA member good for you…..I was a NRA member 1963, gave my membership up because of the direction the NRA was taking, to politicized and becoming to radical for me…Fighting for fully auto weapons in the hands of civilians is insane….Take your rhetoric and spew it somewhere else……Just my opinion……Still I say you can not educate a firearm……..

      • ArmedPatriot

        straw man
        NO ONE is arguing for FULL auto, son

      • NRA is evil

        the NRA is just another special interest lobby that this country should and can do without. despite the very few members that are not insane, the people you’ve chosen to represent you are completely batshit crazy. if your tired of being lumped in with them, i suggest you either find new reps. or join another group. Regardless of what you say about the NRA, the truth is they are nothing more than special interest lobbyist that help continue to erode our political process via donations and contributions helping further corrupt our politicians.

      • Bine646

        Think you need a quick education on the history of nra- although they have evolved in the last decades to a more political presence (lobbying for the rights of gun owners bc that is when they begun to come under attack. Lobbyist are how the govt is run these days- dont hate the player, hate the game). Nra still trains thousands of law enforcement each yr- with thousands of officers on the nra member list. The museum just outside DC is one of a kind and so is the shooting range. Just bc they have taken a stance to protect the thing they are all about- with the support and guidance of millions of members (which keeps increasing) does not make them bat crazy- they believe in something and are willing to fight for it- proud of that

      • liberalssuck

        Ah another liberal that says he supports gun rights, wrong. Self protection is a god given right and every one is entitled to it. You and the rest may choose to be a victim, others choose to defend themselves and their family. We do not care what you chose, as it is a person choice. However you do not get to chose if I prefer to defend myself or my family. You or anyone else ahs that right to tell me if I can or can not defend myself or my family.

      • SyntheticPhylum

        God-given right? Sorry. I happen to agree that we have a right to self-protection, and I’m in favor of gun ownership, but God has nothing to do with any of it. Regardless of what some people seem to think, we are NOT a Christian nation, and we were NEVER meant to be; the Founders of this nation were rebelling against their religion-dominated overlords back in England, and they wanted to make sure that it could NEVER HAPPEN here in America. Thus, the separation of Church & State. God doesn’t give us the right to protect ourselves; the Founders did.

      • liberalssuck

        Actually you are wrong, it means the government can not tell you who or what to worship. Again that is your belief, not mine. I do not care if you agree or not. Our founders had other ideas regardless how you feel. A simple statement by them says it all. I doubt you would understand it. We are a Christian nation and it shows. Why do you think when things are put to the people we always shoot them down. It piss you folks off and it should as our beliefs are as protected as yours. The sad state is not a lot of Christian speak out. it is not their way. it needs to change. Now you should read the founders statement, as to “by our creator”.

      • SyntheticPhylum

        Noy your being Christian doesn’t piss me off in the least. That’s your choice. “by our Creator” has many meanings/interpretations. The bulk of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not specifically Christians. The only thing that ever pisses me off about Christians are the particular followers of a Christian faith that are so full of smug self-righteousness that they feel they can assume that THEIR faith is the only valid one, that this nation is made by/for them (and them alone), and that anyone who DARES to have a different opinion than their regarding a Deity (or lack therof) is ATTACKING their faith. Believe what you want to about God; but this Nation is for ALL FAITHS, which means, by definition, that this is NOT a ‘Christian Nation™.’ Your faith is not under attack. There is no “War on Christianity,” and there hasn’t been one since a Roman Emperor adopted the Christian faith. The bulk of “Wars on Christianity” over the ages have actually been declared BY Christianity against other faiths. Look at the Crusades of the Middle Ages. This message has been brought to you by a History Major/Religious Studies Minor.

      • liberalssuck

        Again, they believed in something other then themselves, that means a deity which means what? Again they were judo Christian and I really do not care what your major or minor is. Stupidity knows no bounds. Again when was the last time Christians force their religion on any one? How long ago? It seems you are not an American which is cool but stop trying to tell us what our founders meant when they wrote it down. Also why they said the separation between church and state so the government can not tell you what or who to worship.

      • liberalssuck

        Also we are at war, not that you will understand this. islam has slaughtered a bunch of Christians so I guess as an academic maybe you should have known that. Nah I am asking to much from a liberal indoctrinated academic! Oh that slaughter happened less then 2 weeks ago in Syria. Again not that you should have an idea or not. Also in the United States we are being suppressed. We are being forced to take down symbols which represent our faith. Hell we can’t even say merry Christmas, roflmao. it might offend someone, roflmao. So yea we are under assault.

      • SyntheticPhylum

        Yes, and Islamic EXTREMISTS need to be taken down. And I won’t even bother trying to figure out who fired the first shot in the Christian/Muslim conflict; sometimes, I’m not sure if any of them understand WHY they fight each other. They’ve been doing that for CENTURIES over there.
        Yes. Christians are being forced to take down symbols that represent their faith… in GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, where religion of ANY sort has no place. And on the Christmas front, I don’t personally CARE what you say to people: Just because I’m not Christian doesn’t mean I don’t celebrate Christmas! But there are a LOT of holidays of similar type during the month of December, in all sorts of religions. If I ever say “Happy Holidays,” it’s not because I don’t want to offend someone, it’s because I want to cover all the bases! You want to be Christian? Fine. I wish you every happiness, and may your Lord bless you in your life. And I mean that with every sincerity. I don’t feel the need for such blessings in my life, so I’m not a Christian. Despite that, I am a good person. I follow most of Christianity’s commandments, because they are sensible rules of behavior, and not because I’m afraid that some supposed all-powerful being in the heavens told me to, and is threatening me with eternal damnation if I don’t. Why can’t people just be good to each other, without God getting mixed up in it?

      • SyntheticPhylum

        There are MANY deities, with just as much likelihood of being ‘real’ as your dear and fluffy God. Christians, as a matter of policy, try to force their faith on non-Christians in this country almost DAILY. But you call it ‘Missionary work.’ Yes. Many Christians are very good people, and I’m happy to know them. But unfortunately, they are drowned out by the loud lunatic fringe Christians that help shape the opinions of both America, and the world at large. Look at the supposed religious members of Congress, and tell me that no one is trying to force Christianity on other people. Not only was I born and raised American, but a significant percentage of my ancestry was here LONG before your ‘Pale God’ arrived on these shores; the rest of my ancestry was Irish Protestant, and came over during the Famine. Yes, I am aware of the reason for the separation of Church & State; not only is the government FORBIDDEN to tell you WHO & HOW to worship, but NO RELIGION is to be enshrined in government, or is to have ANYTHING TO DO with government… Which means that, by definition, we are NOT a Christian nation. Have whatever religion you want; just keep it OUT of government. And God didn’t give us guns; great men like Sam Colt & Oliver Winchester did.

      • liberalssuck

        and you say you are educated. They are judo Christian and whether you like this or not we were founded on judo Christian beliefs. I am sorry you dislike it, however it is true. Deity means a god, call it what ever you will. that is what means. God created man, and get this right if you can, and Sam Colt made them equal, roflmao!! Now I asked a couple of questions what year was the last Christian attack on another religion? When was the latest attack on Christians? No where does it state that government shall not display Christian symbols. No where. The separation between church and state was simple, the government shall not tell you who and what to worship. Sorry that bothers you. You are a typical liberal. You can not believe there is something bigger then yourself. There is! Again how are we forcing our religion on you. I could give a rats butt if you do not believe. We do not force crap on folks like yourself. Again show me where you are forced to pray? Name one time ? You can not. You do not like Christian that is your right. It is my right to believe in god and quite frankly you have no right to tell me differently. For some one supposedly educated, you really are not that bright. This is my last convo with you. If you are indicative of what universities are putting out. We are truly doomed.

      • liberalssuck

        Oh yea if you understood what separation of church and state meant why did you say something different, ah I see you want folks to listen to your liberal view. I got it. Good night!

      • SyntheticPhylum

        I’m aware of the Sam Colt quote. And just because the Separation of Church and State means more than you want it to doesn’t make my interpretation invalid. I’ve NEVER said that you can’t be Christian; more power to you. Just respect MY right to NOT be Christian, and it’ll all work out in the end. And I’m not a liberal, so much as a centrist with liberal leanings; I’m pro-gun & pro-death penalty, yet I’m also pro-choice. I just think that having a government ascribe to a single religion is a Bad Idea. Therefore, I’m of the opinion that government & religion need to stay away from each other. How would you feel if the majority of people in the government were Jewish, and suddenly the ENTIRE NATION was forced, by law, to eat only Kosher foods? I, for one, would miss the bacon! Religions conflict, and the Founding Fathers knew this. So, in order to keep those conflicts from blowing up into holy wars in our own nation, they set a mandate to keep religion out of politics, regardless of their individual beliefs. Which is as it should be. You have every right to your religion, just as I have every right to have no religion; I’ve NEVER contested that. But I will admit to being irritated by “Christian Crusaders” that make the rest of Christendom look bad.

      • jchastn

        The “judo”(sic) part of “judo christian” doesnt believe that your “Christ” was who you believe he is. In fact, the “judo” help lead Jesus to his death.

      • liberalssuck

        Look I really do not care what your beliefs are. We believe in Christ and our founders believed in him too, that is a guess on my part, but I base it on the quote” by our creator.” Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? So they gave us the bill of rights “as endowed by our creator.” That says god given. I am sorry you are having a problem with this. However that is what they believed and laid it out for us. Now this republic only promises three things, Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is it. So far we have government taking more and more of our liberties and seriously hampering my pursuit of happiness. Anyways have a good night. Do me a favor, please read the federalist papers and then the constitution, then bill of rights. Maybe that will help you understand why were have been so successful for 228 years.

      • liberalssuck

        Wait how can you be not from here but from here, roflmao. So more made up stuff? My god man stop it. you are embarrassing your self. You contradicting yourself so much. So you are not an American, who cares. I do not however when you try to preach about things you have no understanding of. Whelp you see my point. Have a great night and God bless!!

      • SyntheticPhylum

        Wow. And you just stepped right off the logic train… I am part-Irish and part-Cherokee Indian, and I was born RIGHT HERE in the United States.

      • jchastn

        Are you brain injured or something? Unless you are totally one hundred percent Native American, your ancestry is from other countries.

      • SyntheticPhylum

        The point wasn’t my ancestry, specifically. My point was that I am an American citizen, born and raised. THIS idiot (liberalssuck) has sworn up and down that I’m not an American. I almost mentioned my Army service instead of my ancestry, but somehow I don’t think that would’ve helped my case, either. I freely admit that part of my ancestry comes from across the Atlantic; that doesn’t make me any less an American, however.

      • jchastn

        Christians try to force their religion on this nation all the time. They spend millions of dollars lobbying congress to pass religious laws and to block laws that would give people they hate the same rights as all other citizens. Wake up igno!!

      • liberalssuck

        When was the last time you were forced to pray. I pray and that is my right. Again both our views are protected. if that bothers you. I do not care. deal with it.

      • SyntheticPhylum

        And you should read the Treaty of Tripoli. And I quote: “Article 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

        See? NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION. The Treaty of Tripoli is from 1797, when John Adams was President. You remember him, right? He was the Second President, after Washington. I think he had a good idea on what our country was founded on, and if HE says that we aren’t a Christian nation, I’d tend to believe him, seeing as how he was one of the Founding Fathers and all.

      • liberalssuck

        Sir believe as you will, however I again will, quote a simple state from our framers and founders of this once great nation. “As by our creator” I will leave it at that.

      • ArmedPatriot

        uh actually we wanted to be able to practice religion as WE saw fit rather than having the Church of England TELL us how to do it

      • ArmedPatriot

        uh actually we wanted to be able to practice religion as WE saw fit rather than having the Church of England TELL us how to do it…

      • Michael Hurwitz

        No one issaying you cant defend your family…friggin lunatic.

      • liberalssuck

        Yes you are. You and others are saying that I am limited in how I defend my family. unfortunately criminals have no such restraints. Also there are many in congress who want a confiscation. Feinstein being the most notable! .

      • liberalssuck

        Yes, yes you are. You are saying that I can only use certain firearms or restrict the ammo count. however no criminal will follow those same rules. So yes you sure are.

      • jchastn

        So if your next-door neighbor starts making weird comments about you and your family being dangerous aliens from outer space, and he quits taking his anti-psychotic meds, and he starts stocking up on AR-15s and ammo, that doesn’t trouble you? You think that this crazy has the right to weapons way beyond what a reasonable person would use for self defense? News. God gives you breath and life at birth. Everything else you earn. God gives you no rights, nothing. By the way, the journalist at the Washington Post has all your personal financial info, all your account passwords and social securtity number, and he is going to put it all on page one. He claims he has an unlimited right under the first amendment to ruin you financially in less than an hour. God given first amendment right. What a joke.

      • liberalssuck

        Wow you are really are good at making shit up. Have you thought about tv or even books. Again has he broke any laws? Our founders had a different view . they saw our rights as from our creator and stated such. Why it is a bill of rights, and not needs. Yet you make up BS and try to pass this off as plausible. Again you nor anyone else has a right to tell me or mine how or with what I may use to defend my family and my self. I am under no illusion that criminals will not follow any laws. The only folks who are punished are the people who follow said laws. Actually if that person did that they would be liable for damages. if he also stole them, then theft would be included. Look you are saying some really stupid stuff trying to prove your point and falling miserably. So lets leave it at this. You do not like guns, so do not get one. Do not go around folks who have them and you will be ok. leave firearms to us that enjoy them and use them.

      • liberalssuck

        Also sir, you and your ilk are the liberal movement that wants to enslave as your ancestors did. You see freemen do not ask for permission to defend ones self. it is natural to them. Unlike you and your fellow slaves we do not need you. In fact leave this great country, there are plenty of countries that support your ideology. We no longer shall sit here and watch while you ruin this country. We are done. Every right you have was secured by force of arms and it is kept that way by force of arms. I can not help the stupidity you all maintain. Again every liberals fits the clinical definition of insane.

      • SyntheticPhylum

        People like this ass-hat are the reason that America has been at war for more than 3/4 of its existence. I do NOT dispute our right to defend ourselves; I’m all for it. I arm myself not only to protect me & mine from criminals, but to potentially defend myself from whack-jobs like THIS guy, when they decide that they need to “REMOVE THE LIBERAL FILTH FROM OUR GREAT NATION.” Just give it time; at SOME point, someone like liberalssuck (though NOT necessarily him; just blind, overbearing zealots LIKE him.) is going to snap and come out shooting. And he claims that LIBERALS fit the definition of insane! Insane is doing the same thing repeatedly, yet expecting a different result. Kinda like the GOP’s efforts at repealing ObamaCare… They’re up to what, 40 attempts now? WASTING taxpayers money on something that will NEVER HAPPEN, and they KNOW it? Aren’t they supposed to be FIXING things? Personally, I don’t care WHICH party ‘fixes’ our economy; I just want it to get FIXED, and the GOP is doing nothing but WASTING OUR TIME, because they don’t approve of a ‘colored fella’ in office.

      • liberalssuck

        It is good you choose to defend yourself. However history has shown it is actually left that can not live in peace. Do you really believe with the crap this man is doing is right and has anything to do with color of skin. If it was me and I voted for him I would be disappointed by his actions. I was by Bush when he signed the patriot act and then the bail outs. It is funny with fast and furious and make no mistake the DOJ was involved in sedation of a sovereign country. He ran guns to another country. Mr. Obama has said executive privilege. Why did he do that if there was nothing there? The irs, really 77 progressive groups approved and only 7 patriot groups. really as an American that alone should make you think and mad. I could be wrong on the progressive numbers as I only glanced at it.
        Ah obarationcare. yea wait until that actually hits. have actually taken the time to read all 2700 pages of that abortion. The cost even according tot he cbo will go up between 23 and 45% in 2014. Yea bad things are coming. wait until it hits. now I stills tand by this. that if you keep doing the same thing and again I understand you educated, what did Einstien say about that. if your policies work so well how come every state and city that has been using these policies in such horrid state. Is it like socialism, good idea in theory, never has been done right?
        Now and this pains me, You are right the gop is lost. We do not have a strong leader and it too makes me dismayed. Again I agree we need to get this economy fixed. I just do not see any side really trying.
        I love how you call me a zealot that was amusing however far from the truth. if you understand anything like conservatives we think critically and not feel our way. I never once advocated violence against anyone yet you make the suggestion some one like me will snap, roflmao. Most liberals are shall we say are not stable. So far most have went off and killed many folks. I guess you could postulate that we need to be armed against them. Altho they usually hit places guns are not allowed. Anyways work tomorrow. Have a great night every one!!

      • Matt

        liberalssuck, I don’t mean for this to be an insulting reply, but I have to honestly say that I have a very hard time reading things you write. They’re just so terribly written. You often use the wrong words, you misspell words in nearly every sentence, you invent grammar and punctuation on the fly…it’s like a dropout of the Mississippi school system struggling to piece arguments together while trying to convince others how clever and well-read he is. It’s not working. And “Judo-Christian”? “Sedation of a foreign country”?

        I understand you want to make your case. May I ask that you take your time and not just dash off a rant and hit “send”? Consider your words more carefully, use a dictionary, try to offer sources, and use the RIGHT word instead of just your best guess.

      • liberalssuck

        I agree, I usually am multitasking, which as a tech I shouldn’t do. But I only have limited time so. Sorry my bad!!

      • Brad

        I think that if I want to own an ar or any other gun it is my right..I don’t tell you what to wear, or what to drive. If you would enforce the laws of this land and not let every gang banger get always with murder. Than we wouldn’t have this problem….The gun is not the problem!!!! It the damn people behind it. If your computer makes a mistake, who’s fault is it.. Sure as hell not the computer but the person behind it putting in the information. You people think the problem will go away if only the guns were removed… It will not.. Grown up and think…..

      • liberalssuck

        Is this directed to me? If it is, you really need to read my comments.. If it is directed to the folks I was talking to. You are spot on.

      • Ronald Burr

        I am more of a kung-fu Christian than a judo Christian, but that’s just a difference in style. What is important is that you and your ilk, Mr. “liberalssuck”, are a dying breed. You confuse jingoism for patriotism and refuse to acknowledge that the most basic concept our country is founded on is compromise and respect (which is why we have the shining example of a bicameral legislature as well as the ignominy of slaves being 3/5 of a person when it comes to measuring population in order to fill a part of that legislature). You will soon fade into obscurity like those who fought for misogyny and segregation before you. You will be nothing but a footnote, a tidbit that causes people to shake their heads in shame that people in a country that professes and brags about its freedoms could be so closed minded to anyone who did not fall into their so very narrow definition of those who deserve that freedom.

        So enjoy the death throes of your hatred and distrust. Huddle together in ever smaller groups of like-minded bigots and charlatans and let yourself be assuaged by tales of a time that never actually existed other than in story books and television programs.

      • liberalssuck

        Where have I stated hatred for anyone. I stand by my statement that you nor anyone else ahs the right to tell me I can not worship as I see fit. if that bothers you to bad. Since I relatively young I am not going anywhere for a time, unless god decides to call me home lol! I guess you too have forgotten history. The democrats are responsible for fighting civil rights, went to war for slavery,created the kkk, Forced jim crowe laws and you talk about me like that. Since I am against slavery in any form including what you all promote now entitlements and you have the audacity to say that about me. You are not a Christian at all sir. I have not said a thing so you too have a reading comprehension problem. I state and stand by this. we have never forced any one for religion. however you are anyone else ahs the right to tell me how I worship. if that bothers you I do not care and obviously it does by your statements. Now I guess that statement about respect can be said right back at yea.

      • Ronald Burr

        Your hatred is made plain in the name you use to post on this forum. It is antagonistic and dismissive and rude. Also, calling someone a liar is hateful and you did that to me.

        Please tell me who is telling you that you cannot worship as you see fit? Does your worship infringe on the rights of others to worship (or not worship) as they see fit?

        When I say you will be gone soon I was not speaking of your life. I have no idea how old you are nor does it matter one iota to the discussion. I am speaking of those who share your mindset, the mindset that there can never be compromise. And yes, Democrats did start the KKK and impose Jim Crow laws. Since you are so well versed in history you should also look at 1948 when Truman (D) desegregated the armed forces, leading to the split of the Democratic party and the exodus of the Dixiecrats, led by Strom Thurmond (who later switched party affiliation and became a Republican as the Republican party was now in alignment with his beliefs). This led to the “Southern Strategy” which you have no doubt heard of so I don’t need to explain it to you. All of this makes your rebuttal nothing more than tired, disproved talking points devoid of substance.

        Much like everything else you have said.

      • liberalssuck

        I am sorry it is how I feel, I also have a first amendment and I utilize it. So far I am not wrong. you folks are unable to face basic facts. in fact it is you and your ilk that are a very violent and it shows in every conversation I have with folks. even here we have proof by simple sentence such as you will be gone soon, I defend myself again folks like you, referring to me.

        Now since the democratic party had been funding the kkk up to the late 60 I guess your time line is a little off.

        Yes we are the ones who always says racist crap,lol. Do I need to post all the democrats who say all kinds of racist stuff. Let me know if I need too!! No please explain your parties southern strategy. I am not southern by the way. I am a yankee, roflmao. How the stupidity and misdirect from you folks is laughable. I mean let me guess sir you support affirmative action too.
        We believe in small government, the right fro everyone to have a good job and right of every one for self defense. yes we are the bad guys.
        Actually I believe in speaking honestly, it actually helps in communication something you seem to have issues with. If it is rude then it is time for plain speak. I have not seen a liberal yet who can look at a fact and come to a logical conclusion. Sorry it seems all you can do is feel. That is not how problems get fixed.
        Funny your last sentence is exactly what we see when discussing anything with a liberal. it seems you will not be able to continue a discussion with me, as you feel I hurt your feelings. So please by all means do the normal liberal thing call me names then leave,lol.

      • Ronald Burr

        Once again you resort to ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments instead of making even an attempt at a valid point. And I know that you feel the need to have the last word so eventually I will stop responding to you because I do have other things to do, but none of them are that pressing yet so here I am. Now to the “points”:

        1) You don’t need to apologize for how you feel. I disagree with you. Granted I am using facts to base my argument on but that isn’t cogent to all of this. And just so you know we are both exercising our First Amendment rights here. Someone disagreeing with you, disproving you, or even calling you names is not an infringement of your 1st Amendment rights, it is merely them also exercising theirs. And if “us folks” are not using basic facts please cite these facts and show us the errors of our ways instead of using vague generalities and insults while crying oppression whenever someone disagrees with you. And as far as your claims elsewhere in the thread that others have problems with reading comprehension maybe you should try applying it to yourself. I stated quite clearly in my last response that the statement about you and your ilk will soon be gone was in no way a threat to your life but was instead an observation that your way of thinking is becoming more and more marginalized by those of us who understand that basic human rights and compromise are how things get accomplished. However since you missed that I will copy what I wrote word for word and paste it here for you. Feel free to scroll up to compare this to the post in question: “When I say you will be gone soon I was not speaking of your life. I have no idea how old you are nor does it matter one iota to the discussion. I am speaking of those who share your mindset, the mindset that there can never be compromise.”

        Hopefully you caught that this time.

        2) It is now clear that you do not have any idea what the Southern Strategy is. I mistakenly thought that if you were in fact unsure you would be able to use your preferred search engine to look it up, but since that was an empty hope allow me to assist you. This is a copy and paste from Wikipedia: “In American politics, the Southern strategy is the Republican Party’s strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.
        Though the “Solid South” had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party’s defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation. The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in the late 1960s. The strategy was successful in many regards. It contributed to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success.”

        TL;DR – Yes, many factions of the Democratic Party did fund the KKK up to the 1960s, until there was a concerted effort by the Republican Party to court those racist voters after the Democratic Party put their support behind ending segregation and towards civil rights. Your refusal to acknowledge this makes the rest of your arguments much weaker as this has been acknowledged by those in the Republican Party as in fact the strategy they chose to implement. To make it clear, the Democratic Party does not have a “Southern Strategy” so I cannot speak on “my” party’s plan for the South. Also it matters not where in the country you live as I was not speaking of YOUR plan nor do you have to live in the South to have a PLAN for the South. That is a logical fallacy, a straw man argument if you will. You refute my statement by using something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand other than having a superficial connection with no basis on the context of my argument.

        3) I did not say you (or those in your party) were the only ones who say racist things. You are once again using a straw man argument. In fact, I never said you or your ilk say racist things. I said that your support of the issues at hand (like sensible gun regulation and reform) will be looked at in the future the same way those who supported segregation are looked at now. If you immediately feel the need to cry “we aren’t the racist ones” then you either fail at reading comprehension or feel the need to immediately deny this because it has the ring of truth and you have no actual defense for it.

        I do not have a strong opinion either way on affirmative action as I am a white male and it has not directly affected me either way in my life. I have heard claims from both sides of the argument that I feel have credence but since I have not had it applied to me I have no basis for forming any real opinion on it. It is an abstract.

        Please tell me what smaller government means. How do YOU think we should shrink the government? Saying you are for “smaller government” is a popular stance but when I ask those who are proponents of this I never seem to be able to get a response as to what that really means to them. Until you can quantify it, it is nothing more than empty rhetoric. As far as being able to look at a fact and come to a logical conclusion please give me a topic and give me YOUR logical conclusion and then let me give you mine. Also, define “logical conclusion”. If a logical conclusion is only a conclusion that you yourself agree with then odds are I will never be able to come up with a conclusion you find logical, however that isn’t what logical conclusion means. And while you may not believe this, liberals also believe that citizens deserve a good job and that they have the right to defend themselves.

        I appreciate your concern about my inability to do anything but feel but you are sorely mistaken. I am actually quite decisive. A small business owner has to be able to make decisions and implement them and I do so on a daily basis. So far I have a pretty good track record of getting things fixed, at least if my ledger is any indication.

        Do you really think my last sentence was me saying that I cannot continue to discuss this with you because I hurt your feelings, or was that an attempt to paint me with your rather misguided understanding of what you consider a liberal to be? Also, please notice that there was no name calling in the post you responded to nor in my rebuttal of your response to me. I said you are huddling with bigots and charlatans, but I never said you were either of those. Again, this is where you need to focus your reading comprehension (this is also not calling you a name or insulting you, just asking you to apply your learned skillset that you have asked others to implement elsewhere in the thread. So unless you used that as an insult to them this cannot be seen as me insulting you. That’s a logical conclusion). So instead of insulting me and those who share my beliefs please respond with reasoned arguments as I have done here for you. And if you could refrain from the deflecting tactic of insulting me or posting a logical fallacy and following that up with a “lol” or “roflmao”. It’s disrespectful of me and adds nothing to the discussion. If you wish to have a serious conversation/discussion on topics you need to respect the process even if you refuse to respect the person you are debating.

        Your turn.

      • liberalssuck

        You mean your party continues to fight for slavery. you all have not changed. We shall see who is a foot note in history.

      • Ronald Burr

        It took you a year to string those words together? Dang, man. That’s impressive. Also, what party is “my” party? I attended a 4th of July party but I wasn’t the host.

        Keep on f***ing that chicken, brother.

      • liberalssuck

        Whelp for your dumbass it is almost to much to for me to take with the stupidity you spout. So I have go to other conversations unlike you folks who can barely think about one subject. The sad part you all show so much stupidity regardless which conversation i go to. It is almost to much to bear some times. At least I am not on the plantation like yourself, so you just keep sucking that government check. Remember sheepdogs and wolves do not care about the opinion of sheep.

      • Ronald Burr

        After all of this you still want to call me a “dumbass”. Okay, Sparky. Whatever you need to do to feel better about yourself. I’m fairly confident that any neutral observer reading this thread would be able to ascertain who the true dumb ass is (and I am willing to bet they won’t pick me), but in the grand scheme of things I know you need to feel like you got one over on me and that you have wounded me with your witty barb so have at it.

        All of your talk of plantation and slavery makes me think you are a little too obsessed with the antebellum South. I’m sorry that you cannot own people outright anymore (unless you are a corporation but that is a conversation for another thread) but it is what it is. I hope one day you will get over it.

        I do find it interesting that (along with your willful ignorance of most of the accepted rules of grammar and punctuation) you assume that anyone who holds a contrary opinion to you is on the government dole. Why is that? Why are you so convinced that only those who join your hive mind mentality are capable of having a job and contributing to society? I’m sure it would shock you to know that not only am I a small business owner who not only pays taxes but also employs others, I also work full time at another job in order to make sure that I can funnel all profits from my business back into the business.

        You have a distinct inability to comprehend even basic logic and a dogmatic approach to life that is going to continue to frustrate you, but I guess as long as you have that convenient bogeyman of “evil liberals” who “take my hard earned money” (even if it is not one bit true as it has been shown again and again that the liberal states are the net givers of money to the government while the conservative states are net takers of government money) you can justify your blind hatred and misplaced outrage.

        Or you could read a book or something, or maybe try to get your news from some source not named Fox or Brietbart or “The Blaze”.

        Finally, a while ago you told me that I am no kind of Christian. Care to elaborate on how you came to that conclusion and how Christ endowed you with the ability to judge others even though he pretty much expressly forbade that?

      • liberalssuck

        You are very funny, you insult me and when I reciprocate your whittle feelings get hurt, Aw poor little government slave. Look this is real simple, although I doubt you will get it. If you rely on the government for your substance, the government owns you. Fact. Now what surprises me is how hard your dumbass will fight to stay on the government’s plantation.
        As far as you being Christian, I really can’t see it. As far as I go, I sin and I try to be good, but at last I am only human. As far as other folks go. They see your hypocrisy. All good and I am sure your little libtard feelings will get over it, oh wait all you can do is feel so maybe not, lmao.

      • Ronald Burr

        Oh you are just PRECIOUS. I want to box you up and give you to my friends for Christmas.

        Remember a year ago when we talked about “reading comprehension”? Yeah, that still applies, especially in that you aren’t applying it. I will say it again, using the smallest words possible in the vain hope that you will understand this time: You didn’t hurt my feelings. You can’t hurt my feelings because I would have to think your opinion mattered in order to feel anything other than amused at your pathetic attempts to lash out at those who think differently than you do. Your frequent use of “libtard” only enforces the fact that you have not one original thought in your encephalitic brain.

        I still don’t understand the government slave thing since I am not on any government assistance but whatever floats your boat. I don’t rely on government assistance for substance or subsistence (which is what I think you were actually going for). The government doesn’t “own” me. I am a tax paying, natural born citizen of this country. Even though I am physically handicapped I work a full time job and am the owner/operator of a small business. Why can you not comprehend these words?

        As far as not being able to see me as a Christian, well luckily for me you are not the one who gets to make the call on that. I know my relationship to Christ and I’m comfortable with it. I realize it is difficult for you to understand that not all Christians believe in the sedition and misogyny that you practice but it’s true. If I am a hypocrite that is one of my many failings, one of the many things I will no doubt have to answer for at the day of Reckoning. But before you get too deep into your self congratulatory mental masturbation sessions and “lmao” parties you might want to make sure your own back yard is clean before you go commenting on how cluttered my yard is. Just a thought from one brother of Christ to another.

        Oh, I can do a lot more than just feel. I can make you look like a drooling, rolling your own poop into balls moron. Hell, I’ve been doing it in this thread for a year now and I haven’t even broken a sweat.

        So go on being a “Judo-Christian” and make sure you tell those damn dirty liberals how wrong they are about everything. They need the laugh as badly as I did.

      • liberalssuck

        Bawhaaa I am sorry but you just lied again. You see if you actually worked with no assistance it would not matter if you are disabled or not. You would just consider your self a productive citizen which as we can see you are on the government’s plantation.
        As far as you not understanding what you read I spelled it out plainly. Again your comprehension is truly weak as you can not understand a simple concept.
        I do find it funny how again you insulted me and when I plainly call you what you are ,your feelings get hurt. Poor little libtard, lmao.
        Get used to it as we are done playing nice. I truly do not care what you call your self a Christian and this is why. If you support anything that goes against gods word, and he spelled it out even plainer then my description of you being a dumbass, then you are not a Christian.
        What I find funny as he’ll. You morons fear guns yet murder millions of babies and that is ok. Isn’t your cry if it saves one baby? So we see your hypocrisy and if you all are able to truly critically think you would see this. What I believe us you chose to ignore this and stick to a agenda.
        You see why I know you still get assistance as I am medically disabled and my insurance has been paying me but you would never have known as it does not matter to this conversation. Yet you choose to say something that was not true, as you use your disability any way you can. Pathetic actually. Now again fact is you insulted me and when I responded back you acted as if your hands were clean like a typical libtard. Man up and understand you will be called out and none of your whining will cover up your sins.

      • Ronald Burr

        So because I mention my handicap I HAVE to be on government assistance because YOU are medically disabled and get insurance payments? Holy CRAP but you are a mouth breathing moron. I will say it again as plainly as possible for you: I. DO. NOT. GET. GOVERNMENT. ASSISTANCE. I don’t receive SSDI or Medicaid benefits or subsidies for private insurance or farm subsidies or any other form of government assistance. The ONLY check I get from the government is my tax refund. I am not a liar but YOU are a hypocrite, bemoaning those on the government teat while you suckle at the insurance company’s coffers.

        And once again: YOU. HAVE. NOT. HURT. MY. FEELINGS. I mock you because you do not know when to quit when you are beat. That’s the end of it all.

        Finally, if you are so convinced that what I believe in goes against God’s word why don’t you go ahead and cite chapter and verse that says so, that says what I believe in goes against His will. I’m betting you cannot. Let’s go toe to toe with Scripture. And here is the best part: you have no idea what I believe. You like to paint me with broad strokes of your own closed minded stupidity but you have no idea what I am about. But come on with it. You’re done playing nice? That’s cool. Show me what you got. Sound out the words you don’t know. I’ll wait here for you to catch up. Just make sure you have someone next to you who can actually read so that you know when I call you out for the hypocritical idiocy you are guilty of.

        You haven’t wiped the smile off of my face yet and you have yet to say one thing that proves your point or refutes any of mine. All you do is play 4th grade name calling on the playground games. I’m betting that is all you have in you.

      • Ronald Burr

        Oh, and for a lark use your real name. Or are you scared? Wuss.

      • liberalssuck

        Oh, but I have or why else attack me? it is not ridicule when you call a name moron. However with your limited comprehension I am not surprised you would say that, lmao. I have hurt your little poor libtarded feelings and I have to admit you are not now the dumbest moron I have had the displeasure to read. my current conversation I am leaving this to go and make more libtards squirm. their stupidity rivals even yours. So cheer up as their are dumber folks then you :D!
        I do not get ssi or anything either my insurance I have paid for covers me. You try to use your handicap for what ever gain you can. Again a hypocrite! So have fun libtard, enjoy your servitude and remember you all caused what is happening and you are winning :P! For now.

      • Ryan Gardner

        You managed to demonstrate your “reading comprehension”, or lack thereof, while simultaneously validating and providing a perfect example of all of Ronald Burr’s points. Since you were unable to understand anything that he said to you, due to your inability to use critical thinking or logic, I will tell you exactly what happened in terms you might be able to understand: You are an absolute hypocrite. You are condescending and talk down to others, but it is hilarious because you have not the slightest inkling that you are proving your own idiocy in the process. You were absolutely destroyed your debate, though I hesitate to even call it a debate since you failed to make a single comprehensive point or rebuttal. You are my favorite type of person to debate with, because you single-handedly prove yourself wrong and make a perfect example for the other person’s argument. You are the epitome of what is wrong with Republicans and Christians. Thankfully they aren’t all like you. You are so far out of your league that you mistake a college graduate level argument as being elementary; it is, in fact, the complete opposite. You are the antithesis of intelligent. Sorry to be so blunt, but Ronald was a bit too nice to you. You need to see just how wrong you have been, in order for you to correct your ways. I do not think you are a bad person, nor do I protest your rights to believe in your god or speak your mind. I do, however, challenge you educate yourself more thoroughly before you engage in discussions that you have no business being in. Especially with a name such as “liberalssuck”, when you can’t make a single valid point for why they suck. Your parents saying that they suck when you were growing up is not good enough.

      • liberalssuck

        So your point was , oh nothing. For debates it depend on facts and you again showed none. Meh not surprised. have a good day dick for brains.

      • Ryan Gardner

        You have my utmost respect for maintaining your composure while destroying this little boy in a one-sided debate. You are correct in thinking that any neutral observer will realize who is the true “dumbass” is. I know how trying it is to argue with someone like that. Just know that your efforts didn’t go unnoticed.

      • Banjo

        I’m not an NRA member, nor am I much of a hunter. I own guns for several reasons including, self-defense because I don’t want to cower like some liberal, hypocritical, morally-superior, pacifist occupy wall street idiot. Also because I want to and it’s my right! To own however many I want and as much ammunition as I want…just because I want to! Even if all they ever do is sit in a safe!!!

        I have never pointed a weapon at anyone, or even thought of it, but I would shoot someone by “standing my ground” if mine or my family’s life were in danger!

        You say the NRA “are the bastard sons and daughters of the KKK” ? Well, the KKK was started by Democrats and they occupied top level positions including Grand Dragon! So who are the bastards now!!!

      • ArmedPatriot

        the KKK disarmed blacks…just like the demoKKKrats try to today

      • Kareng

        I suspect she was talking about a mentality not an actual location. There are still people calling the civil war “the war of northern aggression” and some of them live here in California.

      • What would you call the civil war? just wondering.

      • A misunderstanding by a Republican; and we do not want another one do you?

      • Ronald Burr

        1) The Civil War
        2) The War Between The States

        Take your pick. Both are valid.

      • EMB

        Deedie Fay, if you read what Mary-Ellen write, she was describing part of the “American Right Wing,” NOT Southerners. Personally, I think any Right Wing nutbag is embarrassing, regardless of their geographical location. I mean, look at Michelle Bachman!! She is definitely not a Southerner (she’s too rude!). I was born and grew up in NY State, but my in-laws are from Alabama. They are some of the nicest people I’ve ever met. The point is, read her comment. She is not calling all Southerners “gun totin’ rednecks.” She is referring to those select few who choose to spew their ignorance, intolerance and hatred loudly and proudly, to the detriment of the rest of the country. To be fair, she probably should have included some of the other geographical locations where some of these wing-nuts live. But her point was apparently not to insult Southerners, just radical wing-nuts who end up embarrassing the rest of us. After all, if someone says we need to better regulate who can purchase and/or own weapons, and you hear, “They[re coming to take our guns!”, you might have a slight problem with paranoia, or delusions of persecution. Let all of us who believe in the 2nd amendment’s stated purpose of allowing a “well-regulated” arming of the citizenry stick together. That’s how the ‘other side’ wins–by causing doubt and infighting on “our” side.

      • She should just say right-wing fringe then and forget about the Southerners part of it. This is how misunderstandings come about. Of course Liberals know that all Southerners are not screaming “don’t take my guns” when no one is trying to take the guns away from anyone except of course the felons and crazy people who I don’t think anyone wants to have them roaming the country with armed guns in the first place.

      • How, from “The Southern end of the American Right Wing”, do you get a blanket statement that all southerners are right wing?

      • Dan Kistner

        The south generally votes republican, so you are linked with them. Sorry, but us northerners get crap too. You just get a whole lot more. We shouldn’t generalize about people, but we ALL think the Bushes, the Koch brothers, and Waltons, all southerners, are destroying The United States of America. That makes it hard, to single you out! I apologize for myself, because I have done it. Sorry! I have family that live in the south, so I should have known better. Thank you for pointing it out. I also don’t own a gun, but have many friends that do, and they all hunt, and eat what they shoot. A lot of them USED to belong to the NRA, until the NRA got stupid. But I believe ALL guns should be sold in Federally licensed Gun Shops. You should not be able to buy them at flea markets, OR gun shows. All guns should be licensed, just like a car, and ALL transactions should be at a Gun Shop. We regulate cars, and alcohol, and guns kill more people a year, than those two combined! We regulate cigarettes, more than guns. How tragic. Again, sorry!

      • didi

        I think the first sentence stated that they were speaking of the Southern right wingers. Not all southerners. I too am from the south and not a part of that group and hate being associated with them.

    • Jess James

      California seems to lead the way with the most members in the Dingbat Caucus. Have you ever actually listened to Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstink, & Waters?

      • RRG

        Yes I have listened to them , and I have also listened to the unintelligible rants of members of the GOP/TeaBagger Party such as McConnel, Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and the Paul family. Jess James, another bigoted bastard child of the KKK.

      • Funny how liberals completely forget that the KKK derived out of the Democratic Party and Dems have merely changed their tactics of enslaving the population. They are still as racist as they come.

      • liberalssuck

        and lets not bring up the fact that the democratic party is responsible for Jim Crowe laws and going to war for slavery. Also most of the mass killings have been by left leaning folks. now they are more insidious, they want folks dependent on the government. So again they promote slavery as if you depend on the government for your substance, they own you. You are a slave.

      • Yes, those were the people who at the time represented the ideals which the Republican party is now known for. Just because the names change, it doesn’t mean the people do. In the post-Civil War South, the “Bourbon Democrats” were comprised largely of slave owners who had lost what they considered their property, and when they regained control, they put the Jim Crow laws into place, in order to keep black freedmen “separate but equal”.

        They were considered the “conservative, pro-business faction” of the Democratic party. Conservative and pro-business… sounds like modern Republicans, to me.

      • liberalssuck

        Really and yet we want to lesson government burdens and reduce folks on entitlements yet we are the progressives. Nice try not even close to facts. However I still maintain democrats and liberals want folks to be entitled as they then can be controlled. Slavery, that si what the democrats and liberals want.

      • Do you have a job, working for someone else? Is it your ideal job, where the hours you put in directly translate to money going into your own pocket – instead of a small amount of what goes into your employers’ pockets – which they then see fit to throw you as a scrap?

        Because if not, you are already a slave. You are a slave, because you likely were not able to afford to go to one of the best schools in the nation. You were likely not able to afford to stay in school long enough to get the highest available degree in your chosen field (not the one you picked out of necessity – but what you truly would go into if you could do it all again) – You likely had to quit halfway through and be happy with a bachelor’s degree – if you attended a college at all.

        Most of the people today who do not come from money, have a hard time finishing school because it costs more than they can afford, and saddles them with massive debt. Couple that with the fact that colleges notoriously pile on tons of unneeded credits, prolonging the amount of time it takes you to earn a high degree. Exponentially increasing the amount of money you pay out.

        The debt is then subject to interest – albeit a relatively low rate for most student loans – which ends up adding even more to the amount you pay for your education.

        So, again, I say to you – if you are like most of America – and did not have the opportunity to get the highest education you would’ve liked – in order to get the best job possible – it is because you were unfairly excluded by those who profit from selling education that should be free to anyone who has the discipline and resolve to earn it. Academically, not by working a job to pay for your classes.

      • liberalssuck

        Really, and you purpose to have the government give you your job and education? This is where you will have a problem. I and only I made the decision as to where I wanted to work. No one forced those decision on me. I chose to go to school and I chose my career path. You speak as if you know and you do not. Every one of us has the ability to better ones self. However and again this is where liberals will squirm, it takes hard work and determination to succeed sometimes. We as a group believe in hard work and not having crap handed to us. I do not come from money, my mom and dad were poor as in my dad a disabled vet so to say we didn’t have a lot is a truism. However my dad had something you all fail to even acknowledge. A work ethic and he passed that on. I went to school, I paid for it. I did not need anyone to hand me anything. Man that has to hurt you as you want stuff given. That is a liberal socialist and ahs no place in a free market. Again there are other countries slaves such as yourself are welcome. however here we do not want you. You and most like you are unable to make something out of yourselves by yourself. Everything has to be handed to you or you cry as it isn’t fair. Life isn’t fair and our republic only promises 3 things. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It has given everything it promised me. You can accept what ever excuse you chose, again it is your choice.

      • You need to do some research about all these mass killing that you think have been done by left leaning folks because that is wrong and the government is really worried about the lunatics that are leaning right-wing fringe.

      • liberalssuck

        Holmes was ows, . Dillion and klebold both parents democrats and liberals. Boston bombers supported Obama. yes it is the right you need to worry about. you see we normally deal in facts. unlike the left. I mean you all pray the next tragedy is a right wing perpetrator. That is pretty sick, as we on the right do not want to have another tragedy at all. You folks are a sickness, or why else would you all pray for something as sick as the next tragedy. So maybe you should do some research to see who is committing these unspeakable acts. oh the shooting at the FRC left wing.

      • I can’t speak for all liberals, just as you can’t speak for all conservatives – there are good and bad individuals on both sides of any issue – but I will tell you that personally, I don’t give a shit who is perpetrating these crimes. I care that you all want to make it as little of a hassle as possible for anyone – liberal or conservative – to get their hands on the weapons with which these crimes are being committed.

      • liberalssuck

        and yet you can not show how any of these items obozo brought up would stop sandy hook. Fact it wouldn’t. Seeing how that creature, killed his mother, stole her guns and committed an unspeakable act. yes background checks would have caught that/sarc! I too agree, I do not want to see any more tragedies, nor terrorist bombings. However as a free society there are certain dangers involved. We have folks who want to see us hurt and killed. Unfortunately it is human nature as some humans are just plain evil. No I will not give up any more liberty for anymore safety. we have already done so and it did not help as we can see from the last bombing. DHS was supposed to take care of all the interfacing so all alerts would be followed up. Didn’t happen… We were alerted to these folks and our government dropped the ball as it always does. Now since gun ownership has risen and crime has been steadily dropping, I see no reason to put any more restrictions on law abiding citizens.

      • jchastn

        Well if the assault weapons ban had not expired, the mother of the Newtown killer could not have bought the weapon that he used to kill all those children.

      • jchastn

        Yeah, heard all this before. Nobody can cite any proof of the political leanings of any of these gun nut lunatic murderers. All we know is that they are killers. Anyone who calls them Democrats is a liar.

      • liberalssuck

        Really, So all the reports of Holmes ows is false. Dillion and kelbold from progressive parents, Sorry I am from Colorado and those are true. Yea most the killers have been left leaning and or straight up left. You can hide your head in the sand or accept you folks maybe unstable. I do find it sad that when something like this happens you wish they are right wing. How sick are you folks that you wish this happens. The difference is we do not want to see any of these tragedies happen. I mean liberals I know are very unhappy and a lot are on anti depressant meds. None of this can be good for a person.
        I ask a simple thing, Show me the proof they are not. All I ask.

      • BackSeatJesus

        And, let us not forget that Democrats were also responsible for ending
        segregation, at which time, all the cousin-marrying folks from
        Dumfuckistan ran to the Republican party.

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        To you and Matt, wrong. The dems fought civil rights to the very end. Try a little research and reading. You can spell so I think you should be able to pull that off.

      • You’re right, we’re still doing it! Almost as much as those other guys… (I have anew idea: Anybody else want to be “against” civil wrongs?)

      • You mean like President Buchanan publicly supporting the Dredd Scott case?

      • That is because in the past, the Democratic party was the one comprised mostly of the middle and lower classes. The middle and lower classes have always included, and will always include ignorant, trashy, horrible, uneducated people.

        This is how the Republican party likes it, this is how they go out of their way to keep it, and the people who are victimized by it are too stupid to see that being kept ignorant and servile is a bad thing.

        It’s sleight of hand on an epic scale. Nevermind that we’re oppressing your ability to become better educated – look at all those minorities trying to steal your minimum wage job – you know, the one you have to settle for, because in this country, we like to discriminate against the poor when it comes to higher education.

        If you can’t pay for college, that degree you’ll never have isn’t going to let you above what we feel is your acceptable pay grade. Keep burning that gas, chipping away at that mortgage.

        Also, look at all those other minorities, trying to live off your hard work. They want money out of your check, that barely supports you and all the kids you have no business having – so that they can pay for all the kids they have no business having!

        Yes, there are racists, homophobes, and bigots within the Democratic party – but they lie mostly on the poor end of the scale – because they’ve been denied the opportunity to receive a proper education – and on the rich end of the scale, where the reason for discrimination is how much money you have, not what color you are.

      • Denied the opportunity? They have been given every opportunity to excel through programs, government handouts and other means that were not available to me or any other person whose parents made a certain level of money (during the 80’s it was just over $30k). I had to work my way through college and so can they. Don’t excuse lazy behavior for blame on a particular party.

      • They were called dixiecrats.North or South doesn’t matter.We need to vote.

      • And voting does what? Voting stations are manipulated. Always have been. We have been led to believe that they are for our best interests. We need to start again with a completely different format. By impeaching all of these “good ole boys” and replacing them with laws that actually work and with Representatives that actually represent the people, we just might have a chance to continue as a country.

      • You forget it was the Republicans at that time that was trying to enslave the south and take revenge for the civil war. It’s always been the Republicans they just changed their names as the years went by.
        It’s a funny game of politics this country plays. Why do we only have two parties to pick from? The people who run are already picked to be in the final game.

      • liberalssuck

        Wow talk about stupidity. you ma’am are plain wrong. the democrats went to war to keep slavery. the Republicans went to war to stop slavery. I bet you did not know the underground rail road ran to northern states, nah you really are to stupid to know that just based on your comment.

      • They were calling themselves democrats at the time, but they were, in actuality, a bunch of semi-rich ex-slave owners, who were pissed off that their property was in jeopardy of being “taken” from them by those more enlightened – if that doesn’t sound like a Republican gun-nut, I don’t know what does – the part about being pissed off that their property might be taken away, that is – you can infer from the rest whatever you want.

      • I don’t disagree with you on needing to rid ourselves of the 2 party system but I do disagree that Republicans tried to enslave the South. Check your history (and I am talking real history not what you get fed with by mainstream media and liberal professors who twist truth to support their misguided ideologies). Democrats merely changed their tactics in how they go about enslaving a population through causing people to believe government handouts are entitlements and Socialistic philosophies. Both only work for those who rule, not for the average citizen.

      • RRG

        I’ll admit that they originated in the southern Democratic party after the Civil War, but the KKK, which I believe that you are secretly a member, migrated enmass to the Repuglican Party when their patron saint, Ronald Reagan, was elected to the Presidency.

      • They did? And your proof of this is where? From everything I find in literature and personal testimonies, the KKK is still alive and well camping in the so called liberal side. Sorry you have been deceived in to this misguided belief.

      • Fear, ignorance, bigotry, and greed, versus Humanity.

      • You lefties should be careful with your references to the KKK.

      • Why is that? I’ve spent most of my life surrounded by ignorant white trash bigots – I’m not overly concerned about upsetting them now.

      • liberalssuck

        Your ignorance shows thru to your true nature. nothing about liberals and democrats change. You folks are the racist and most intolerant people I have had the displeasure to meet.

      • I am not racist, I’m humanist. If you can’t behave like a human being who has enough education to engage in a civilized argument, without using words like “thru” – I have little regard for you, or for your so-called “rights”.

      • Why?

      • Jess James

        The forgot the DNC founded it. The also forgot the late Senator Byrd was a Wizard.

      • Jess James

        Actually, you show low intelligence for pulling the KKK card. They are a bunch of racists cowards like you. All punks like you can do is resort to name calling when you have no valid debating skills.

      • RRG

        Jess, you resorted to the name calling, bigotry, racism, lack of intelligence and definitely no debating skills (unless you call the fact less crap Fox “News” broadcasts as debating points) with your remark about “Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstink, & Waters”

      • jchastn

        Issa is the biggest dumbass around. The new McCarthy.

    • How much longer can America tolerate this insane behavior? How much longer can the world tolerate this insane America?

      • I wonder Jaap why you are here if it’s so insane. You are free to leave, and if you don’t live here (legally) we don’t care what you think.

      • Mick Price

        You mean those who despite decades of failure, continue to call for gun restrictions that get more people killed? Don’t know. But other countries are more insane on this issue.

    • hiatt111

      I suppose if the GOP stood behind the killing of babies, this would seem smart to the rest of the world. You are full of empty insults that do nothing except prove what nasty people most libs are. Awful, nasty people! Good thing that they are the tolerant party..rofl

      • hiatt… what do you call newtown?

      • BackSeatJesus

        Those children were already born. She and her ilk only care about fetuses.

      • Scooby154

        No Republican is Pro-Life they are only Pro-Birth after the child is born they don’t give two shits what happens to that child or the family and most of the time when i woman has an abortion its because they know they cant support a child. all animals on this earth yes people, that does means humans too we are a type of animal have practice abortions since the dawn of man and from making people have a child they cant support means they probable need to get on food stamps, cash assistance, social programs that make it so they can raise this child just so those same republicans that made it so this woman have this child can call her a lazy drugged up person that only wants things handed to her for free and that its not fair to the tax payers to have to support her

      • A tragedy, caused by a nut job.

      • with a gun that could shoot over 100 rounds in less them a few minutes.

      • BackSeatJesus

        What a load of crap. “Killing of babies”? This coming from someone who is probably a member of the party that wants to stop programs that help actual born children who are already here on this planet, programs like Head Start and food stamps, The same party that is pro death penalty, pro war and against easy access to birth control AND anti sex ed in schools…bunch of bible thumping “morans”.

      • hiatt111

        Typical venom spewing nonsense from one of the blind lemmings. Let me see if I understand you: conservatives want to starve children, kill criminals, we want war (doesnt matter who with or the cause) easy access to birth control? wont even go there. We want to dumb down our children about sex and we thump bibles? Lemme splain sumpin to you missy. We conservatives don’t all read the same words off the same page as you libs with no original thought process. We don’t need talking points to tell us what to believe for that day. You are empty, very empty.

      • BackSeatJesus

        Yes, that is the base of the modern day party of which you are apparently a member. You are entitled to your pot-calling-the-kettle-black opinion. This is ‘Murica!

      • Amen!

      • jchastn

        Actually, Conservatives do want all those things. And most of them dont read anything that uses big words.

      • load of crap? apparently you haven’t been watching the news lately. Oh that’s right the progressive MSM didn’t cover the trial.

      • BackSeatJesus

        Kermit Gosnel is a baby killer. No one supports him. Plenty of it was reported on new stations other than Fox. However, Hiatt111 was not referring to Gosnel and she knows it.

      • We are tolerant of those who are different from us by birth, circumstance, or choice – when that choice is not one motivated by hate, greed, or religious dogma – We are not, however, tolerant of those who are willfully ignorant, racist, homophobic, and bigoted.

      • you mean those of you who agree with the imposter in chief who allowed 4 Americans to die in Benghazi, when he could have used forces especially trained to intervene in these matters?

      • BackSeatJesus

        Please tell me how you bitched and whined when close to 30 dignitaries and various US Embassies died during the last administration.

      • No I think he means Bush 43 who was never elected but given the Presidency by the SC; who started 2 wars on lies of WMD and gave 2 tax cuts to the richest while we borrowed money to fight these wars then lead us into the great recession, who can’t go out of the country because other countries want to try him on crimes against humanity; white suffer and other means to kill hundreds at a time.
        Get real Meyers the DOD says that the troops could never have gotten there in time. Congress cut back on the number of people to protect all these places because we just don’t have the money; maybe we could ask Romney and the other 400 1%ers if they would spend some of their money to protect these places they have more money then they could ever spend. Think about what you say before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

      • Amen.

      • I find it difficult to enter into an argument with a birther. Let me ask you a much more important question: what if the man was born in another country? What difference would it make to you – other than the fact that it would disallow him, on a technicality, becoming president?

        There are plenty of scumbags who were born on “US soil” as you people are so fond of phrasing it, that have gone on to become president, and royally screw the citizens of this country – so being an American by birth doesn’t make you better, or more well-suited, than anyone else.

        The fact of the matter is, none of us are actual Americans – we were just born here to immigrants, a few more generations ago than the minorities you people look down on today, for doing the same thing: having children here so that they become US citizens, by birth.

        We took this land from the only real “Americans”, illegally and by force – so who are any of us to judge people based on whether or not they are born here?

      • jchastn

        And the GOP was floating the idea that we could amend the Constitution so that Arnold could run for Pres.. No, they simply hate this Presidents skin color and make up shit to discredit him. That is the leadership of the GOP and the reason that they are on the way to extinction.

      • jchastn

        you mean the forces that were at best 5 hours away from deploying? What a douche red herring!

      • What?

      • Michael Hurwitz

        When Hillary Clinton becomes our next POTUS, will you all leave?

    • Funny but that’s exactly how I see the left.

      • I guess that’s the problem with a two party system each party see the other party the same way.

    • BeeKaaay

      The RINOpublican party has been infested with Marxists, and has become a Marxicrat party clone.

      We have a one party system.

      THAT is the problem.

    • Banjo

      “I think the USA is the only nation in the developed, free world with
      such a huge chunk of mentally ill people who presume to control the
      country and who are so oblivious to the harm they cause.”

      You mean like the Obama administration???
      Talk about dishonest jokes! He’s the biggest joker of all!!!
      Making the sequester as painful as possible to the American public in an effort to politicize it. Deliberately harming the American people -you know, the ones he’s supposed to protect – for politics!!
      First he tries to blame Republicans for the sequester – which was his idea in the first place.
      Second he cries Armageddon – the world is coming to an end
      Third he turns-down the authority to prioritize the cuts that would continue funding important priorities, so he could play the blame game.

      Also, it turns out people were right about Benghazi – He, Clinton and whoever else lied to us.

      So really, who is the joke???

      The “theatrics” of the NRA are an important function PROTECTING the 2nd amendment Rights Americans who care about their CONSTITUTIONAL Rights ..you know, sort of like your 1st amendment rights!

      “…can’t quite comprehend that so many stupid Americans spew mental garbage all over the country and get away with it.”
      Half the nation could say the same about progressive liberal crap!
      By the way, I’m not a Republican, so the right-wing thing doesn’t work on me

    • liberalssuck

      and yet gun ownership has risen and crime has dropped in the last 20 years. I think you are confusing the repubs with demorats. liberals usually can not take facts, seems you can’t feel them. Go figure!

    • James

      The GOP and DNC are basically the same exact entity. They’re funded by the same people who pull the same strings no matter which party’s top rep happens to be President… It’s the illusion of choice my friend. “Democrats this” “Republicans that” Abraham hit me with a wiffel ball bat…. You want real change in America??? Don’t vote for either party. Their both chalked full of criminals who pass legislation that benefits their interests and not those of the American people. If you can’t see that then you should have your eyes checked…

  • Getting tired of this debate…it’s funny how people define black and white sides on this issue. Liberals believe this and conservatives believe that…a Palinism I think. What is liberal about any of this…would not a liberal look at this using science, not science to prove a cause but science to understand the root causes, not seen in this article BTW, but to understand the root causes without fear that the answers may clash with their own beliefs. If not then you really have conservative groups with a difference of opinions…a fence between them so-to-speak. In really you have the same shit, but a different toilet. That is where we are at with congress, infectious…where are those looking for real answers, but I guess that would take a real effort. This nation has raised a bunch of followers that are clueless on how to look at things critically.
    ~ Peace

    • Rita M Nicholson

      We are all tired of this debate, but since you suggested it, what is your scientific response to solve this problem? You have just thrown out a statement without any suggestion on how you would use your critical thinking skills to come up with an answer to solve this problem.

    • pink44

      I know this is an old comment but I just have to say: why on earth would you say, “…would not a liberal look at this using science…” liberals don’t use science, they use emotion. I was liberal or so I thought, being an agnostic and part of a diverse family, I was basically raised to be liberal. That started to change in about 2010 and I was fully aware of the hypocrisy in 2012. Liberals are anti-fact, anti-truth, massive deflectors, and often lie and yell to get their way.
      Independents/ Moderates are about as logical as one can be. One side is hateful to the other. The other is bible-based and close-minded, but one chooses to protect our freedom while the other steps on it at any chance (Hint: it’s the left).

      • ScubaMoon

        Political wise Independents would be independent by definition.

        The word gay used to me happy, but the definition now is understood to be something else.

        Liberal thought would favor progress, freedom of the individual with the guarantee of liberties. Freedom aristocracies and monarchies, and freedom from prejudice and/or bigotry…this is by definition, without political connotations. Because of politics, the media, and bias, the word Liberal has been demonize and branded on to a political party that does not represent the true meaning of the word.

        Conservative though is disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. Conservatives avoid novelty or showiness.

        And then you have those variations in the middle. We need the liberal, the conservative, and all of those in the middle. Hundreds of years ago liberal thought fought the British for freedom, the conservative thought was loyal to the England and the King because they were uncertain with change in that direction. When the constitution was written the liberal though was not grounded enough in my opinion and needed conservative thought to bring order.

        None of this has anything to do with critical thinking or science because both and all of those in between have used those tools to justify the path they are on.

        Politics my opinion is just an exercise of special interests and greed. They can all go to hell. We the people has not been in we the people since WW2. The affluent has positioned themselves to political and finanical power by throwing scraps to the poor and middle class while focusing on long terms gains. Corruption comes all the way from multinational corporations to those taking advantage of social subsistence, so one cannot really blame the rich because the rich got rich with help of those who were not rich.

        The rules are being made by those who are being control or with their own interest at stake. If you think about it, those making the rules are not going to change the rules for we the people and for the good of the nation if it would reduce their interest or position in life.

        I am an old man and my time is short, I worry about the America my grandkids and great grandkids will inherit…my biggest worry is the United Nations and this direction of this one world government, which would leave a network of the affluent controlling the rest,..the rest would be considered livestock.

        I am not sure I answered your question but…

        ~ Peace

      • Gabapentin

        Oh look, another Nazi.

    • Gabapentin

      I’m a liberal with a gun I’ve had for 45 years, and 6000 rounds of ammunition for it. I think the Trumpanzees are in for a big surprise when they open fire.

  • R.Young

    Every day our God Given Rights are being chipped away, little by little. Give a Politician an inch and they will take a mile. A prime example was Boston, wasn’t it just wonderful for an entire city to be in lock down? This is what you can expect as the GOVT. (REGIME) grows bigger and bigger and Bigger. When there is trouble always remember “We’re here from the Government and We’re here to HELP!” Ten words that every American always wants to hear for it just give Americans that wonderful warm and fuzzy feeling. The only thing the Regime wants to help is itself!

    • theg8r

      I know it’s hard for people like you to understand, but god did not give you or anyone elese the right to bear arms. Men, in the form of a written constitution, ie; laws, gave you that, and all the other rights you claim to cherish. And for the record, do you really think jesus would have advocated for the right to bear arms? If so, you are either a) delusional, or b) a complete moron.

      • R.Young

        Delusional & a complete MORON OKAY, Then you do not believe in the right of Self Protection with any kind of weapon what so ever? Just dial 911 and the people with guns will be there in minutes to protect you, hope that never happens to you.
        I am one of those Home Grown American TERREORISTS the Government has warned all of its Loyal Subjects about!
        U.S.A.F. Ret “Baby Killer” Viet Nam & Cold War Vet!

      • concerned citizen

        I doubt you’re a terreorists. I don’t think that’s been invented yet. Or maybe you’re the first.

        Our founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson, who people like you are wont to quote) knew and spoke of how laws must be able to change to stay relevant and adapt to current issues.

        You should probably go to the VA and talk to someone, you’re exhibiting classic signs of paranoid delusion.

      • Jess James

        He also talked about watering the tree of liberty. Washington and Madison also stated why the Bill of Rights was there.

      • Jefferson lost the argument too. BTW- Jefferson did not write the Constitution, James Madison did.

      • R.Young

        The Current issue “Gun Control”, let us start there, Booze kils, Motor Vehicles kill, hammers kill, rocks kill, etc. However it is the person holding the Rock or hammer or the person behind the wheel or the person that drinks sometimes to access that does the killing. If we put more restrictions on “GUNS” (they can’t even enforce the laws already on the books) then there should be more restrictions on all “WEAPONS” however lets not look at the people behind those weapons. No criminal will ever stand in line or fill out an application for owning a weapon!

      • You should also realize the exact reason the constitution used the words “ARMS” was to make the point that it does not have limits to what types of weapons one can have. This is exactly the reason the term “musket” was NOT used, as that term would have limited the type of weapons.

      • No, it was used because there were various arms available for use at that time, beside the musket, so listing it specifically, instead of just saying “arms” would have brought the legality of the other weapons of the time into question later. They were writing in quill and ink – they had a lot to say already, without trying to add in, by exact name and specification, every available weapon in existence.

      • If you like to identify yourself as a terrorist, perhaps you would like to be treated like one as well?

      • hiatt111

        What, you mean like free healthcare, housing and food stamps? Progressives are an absolute hoot. You blind lemmings make me laugh and that is a good thing.

      • R.Young

        I Am your Friendly Local Neighborhood Terrorists, I am one of the Ones your Rreime has been warning you about! Now as to wanting to be treated like one, I say this do you think you are the one? If you do I will be more than happy to provide my Name, address etc and you may try if you thin you are big enough, Fair?

      • Obviously you need to read what you replied to again! That is not what she said! She was talking about Jesus advocating for guns! But of course you had to go on some huge rant! BTW yes you are the type of person they are warning about! I know you are a vet and I respect that but you clearly could benefit from some counseling! You are creating a bad image for veterans everywhere!

      • paul

        Yes, the veteran who espoused shooting people in the head is doing a great job creating a good image for vets, isn’t he?

      • R.Young

        So another of the people who believe tht the right of self protection should be given over to the Law and that you would sit by and not protect yourself or family with any means available while waiting for the local LEO’s to arrive!

      • Jess James

        Any “man” that can give you a right can take it. So can a government.

      • paul

        That’s right, government gives us these rights, and if they decide that we no longer need them, then they can take them from us.

      • Governments are created by men. Without a government, anyone can do whatever they want, therefore rights DO NOT come from government! How can something you create give you anything you do not already have?

      • EMB

        You forgot c) have never read the New Testament, or d) don’t understand it at all.

      • Actually, God gave you both the right to life and the innate ability to defend yourself with your own arms and the will to do it (this used to be called the innate instinct of survival, but they don’t seem to teach that in schools anymore).

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        I seem to remember something Jesus said along the lines of ” sell your cloak and buy a sword “. And the Bill of Rights was written to put into word those rights that belong to all, regardless of govt. That leads me to the conclusion that you are a) delusional and b) a complete moron.

    • As another poster said, God didn’t give you any rights. Hell, this country isn’t even a “Christian nation.” What gave you rights was that handful of men who sat in a small, hot room drafting this elaborate Constitution, and then later 10 amendments to said Constitution, giving us the basic rights that they felt everyone should have. There is no God in government, and whether there is a “God” at all is still up for debate. There are no rights being taken away, only regulated as the Constitution provides for.

      • Concerned

        So you are saying we didn’t have the right to bear arms before the 2a ?

        What is the difference between a privilege and a right?
        Who gave us our Rights before the Gov so kindly stepped in and accepted the responsibility for our well being ?

      • Another government.

      • Concerned

        I dont think we had a government before the government was created.

      • hmm…then what was the Revolution for????
        we didnt have our OWN government but we WERE being governed

      • Concerned

        To get out from under an oppressive government?

        Which doesn’t have any thing to do with the question.
        Who gave us our Rights before the US Government was formed?

      • The founders were repressed by a tyrant called a king. That is why the constitution exists today.

      • EMB

        If you’re talking about the US, then yes, we did. It was called the British Crown, of which we were a colony.

      • Concerned

        No I am not talking about the US,
        I am talking about America before any government was formed.

      • You mean the Native Americans? The defended themselves too…

      • We were under British rule before we declared ourselves independent and formed our own government.

      • What about then there was no government? Who “granted” humans the right to self-defense before there were such things as government? The answer is nobody! The right existed because there was nobody to stop them and restrict their rights.

      • Men create governments. Without a government, exactly who is going to stop me from owning a gun or protecting myself? Government only restrict rights, they do not and cannot grant them.

      • Thomas Medford

        It’s actually a natural right. Even animals are given their own forms of self defense. We humans have a greater knowledge than the animals that have natural rights to defend themselves. We are not born with horns, antlers, and other force equalizers. So we have other forms of self defense. Those would be the arms protected by the second amendment. The right exists before the second amendment. That right is simply protected by the second amendment.
        To be honest, it’s more than simply the second under attack. The reason we fight the registration/universal registration is that it tends to be used by those who oppose firearms for public shaming. As seen with the Journal News “outing” gun owners in New York, having that information out there can be exploited. And it was for those reasons the ACLU opposed that latest legislation along with the NRA. That permanent recording of the check is exactly what we opposed. If they really want us to be able to perform a background check on anyone, they should allow we gun owners a way to perform that check without going to a gun store.

      • I agree that you should be able to preserve your anonymity when submitting to a background check.

      • R.Young

        For those out there who do not believe there is a GOD, then the Bible is just another book written by man and open to interpitation any way one feels like? To them I say there are no so blind as those who will not see and those so deaf as those who will not hear! Open your eyes and look around and you will see the Wonders that God has provided!

      • Why not? Everyone damn well does interpret the bible however they see fit, to back their argument at the time, while ignoring any parts of it that contradict what they’re saying.

      • Yep, the Bible is just another book written by several men. It’s a piece of literature, not something that was spawned by something divine. But that’s not completely relevant to be honest.

      • Wrong. That handful of men wrote these rights into the constitution only to limit the governments legal authority to infringe ones god given human rights, or ‘natural rights’ if you prefer that term, which was equivalent wording back in those days. (research it).

      • Exactly.

    • Everyone is so quick to jump on the 2nd amendment band wagon about rights being “chipped away.” They neglect to focus on the other amendments such as the 9th which was put in place to allow the government to put in place regulations to protect other rights now specified by the constitution such as right to public health and safety. If you have a problem with the police trying to keep people safe when a terrorist is running around bombing and shooting people then that’s your problem.

      • Concerned

        I have a problem with being unarmed when a terrorist tries to come in my home.
        I have a problem with the police forcing me out of my home where there is no terrorist, out on to the street where the terrorist are.

      • Jess James

        The entire Bill of Rights are being chipped away. The 9th and 10th are probably in the worst condition. The 4th and 5th are under stress. When the 2nd Amendment goes, it will be a moot point and we will likely be speaking Chinese or Russian in 50 years.

      • “Your right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” – Oliver Wendel Holmes.

        Your right to “safety” is up to you, and when you interfere with my right to protect myself, you cross the line. As for the inverse, that’s why we have laws against things like assault and murder.

      • R.Young

        If it were not for the 2nd there would be no others!

    • Kareng

      I should not assume but you make it difficult not to. My assumption is you will not bother to check out the veracity of your statement. I,have family in Boston and they were allowed to,go out. They were advised to stay in because of the possible danger. Some went out anyway and guess what happened to them. Nothing.

    • RRG

      Where was the conservatives screaming about a major city, New Orleans, being under lockdown and martial law for months following Hurricane Katrina? The most signifiicant thing that I was hearing from the right wing nut jobs was that government should let the city wash down the Mississippi into the Gulf.

      • Apparently you’ve never seen the video, (available from the NRA website BTW), deriding government, (local law enforcement), for forcibly taking away people’s guns. People who were legal owners and minding their own business. Conservatives DID scream about the actions of police in New Orleans after Katrina, people like you were just too busy trying to blame a natural disaster on George Bush.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Why don’t you ask the people of Boston how they felt about their government after the bombing. From what I’ve read, some of them would like to invite you to their fair city for a major ass whoopin’

      • R.Young

        How nice another Boston Tea Party just for me or is that for all the American Home Grown Terrorosts (the Veterans)?

  • Man, this article is so full of fail it’s funny.
    Sad thing is, I bet the author actually believes some of the lies himself. I pity such a level of stupidity, I also think we need to schedule Allan for some medical evaluations before it’s too late. He seems like another one of the liberal cooks who end up ‘breaking’ and going on shooting sprees as has happened so many times in recent history, he does fit the profile.

    • How exactly is this article “so full of fail”? Please, enlighten us.

    • Demonstrate your counter point. Name calling is both juvenile, and a clear sign you have no rational points to share.

      • Jess James

        Like you just did.

      • Concerned

        I agree 100%
        Which is why this article is such a fail.

        “These people at this NRA convention are lunatics. Mentally ill
        psychopaths who have an unhealthy worship of inanimate objects and
        suffer from delusional paranoia of damn near everything.”

    • I felt that the article was spot on! Please enlighten us on the “fail”…or are you just another party line propaganda spewer with zero intellect? Oh wait, you said “liberal cooks”…yes, liberals are excellent at preparing a meal. LMAO!! Never mind, you answered my question for me!!

    • What the Hell are you talking about??? Well Bba, what ever that means, seems like some counseling and a med for delusional paranoia would be in order for you!

    • Liberal Cooks? I wasn’t there was an outbreak of mentally unstable kitchen staff commiting mass-gun violence these days.

      If only there were a way to prevent crazy people from obtaining weapons. Oh well, I guess not.

  • Dave

    So nobody wants to take away our damn guns? You should read or watch some of Diane Fienstein’s interviews and report back. A senior senator is quoted as saying if she could scoop up all of them, she would. You can not sacrifice liberty for security. If you disagree, you deserve neither.

    • some of us FOUGHT FOR YOUR GODDAMNED “LIBERTY” in wars—and the weapons we used do NOT belong in the hands of redneck, racist bastards who would rather shoot a person based solely on their skin color or a bunch of CHILDEREN because they are there!!! You gun nuts have gone TOO FAR, YOU HAVE THE BLOOD OF 21 INNOCENT CHILDEREN ON YOUR HANDS, AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS????!!!!

      You are the bastards who need to be SHOT IN THE HEAD……..

      • Concerned

        I’m pretty sure the people who insisted those children not have adequate protection are the ones with blood on their hands.

        No one is talking about taking guns away from

        “redneck, racist bastards who would rather shoot a person based solely on
        their skin color or a bunch of CHILDEREN because they are there”
        only from law abiding citizens who dont shoot people because of their color, or children because they are there.

      • Exactly. The CT shooter specifically chose the school as his target because it was a soft target. THERE WAS NO ONE THERE TO PREVENT HIM FROM KILLING AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.

        He said it himself.

      • Wow powerful comment! But I don’t think we should be shooting or threatening to shoot people!

      • Jess James

        It is because of pychos like you wanting to shoot people in the head that some of us have ccw licenses.

      • Dave

        And you call conservatives crazy. Have you ever noticed that most people that commit mass murders are Democrats?

      • If that were true, you’d be too scared to make such a claim.

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        By your same logic, if all those who dont agree with the progressive, I mean democrats views are a bunch of ” right wing ‘gun nuts’ ” and you should be too scared to comment. Is that about right?

      • Kareng

        Like who? I challenge you to answer.

      • Read a few posts above your reply…you will see a liberal democrat supporter behind every single shooting incident you like to cite.

      • RRG

        I say BS to your comment. Provide some proof, unless of course you are a typical Fox “News” watcher that doesn’t let facts confuse your imaginary issues.

      • No, they’re typically maladjusted, socially awkward average white kids.

        In other words, Libertarians.

      • Jess James

        Va tech, Ft. Hood, Beltway Sniper . . .

      • The weapons we are talking about ARE NOT the weapons you used, they just look similar. Fully automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934. Manufacture of new automatic weapons for civilians has been illegal since 1986.

        Of course, your last line shows just how deranged you are. I think YOU are someone who should not have guns, ever!

      • Hey, did you know civilians already have weapons superior in firepower and accuracy to most military rifles? (.50BMG not included, as both military and civilians have them). Civilian ammo is designed to take down animals 3 to 10 times bigger than humans. That FMJ .223 round is designed to go right through a body with much better chance of survivability than any high power hunting round.

    • Nobody important wants to take them all away, at least. There are crazy people on both sides of the argument. Those that don’t want ANY sort of regulations at all, and those that want to take away all guns completely. They make up a small portion of their parties, and should just be ignored completely.

      • Lifetime Hunter and Collector

        I wish that were true but unfortunately day after day I see Republican “patriots” who are in many ways my friends (who I often for these reasons wish I didn’t know at all) posting ridiculous rants about their rights being “taken” and the guns having to be “pried from my cold dead hands.” I can’t believe that these people are so ignorant as to think that regulation means confiscation. I hear a few Liberals say things about people not needing guns, but I have not heard such a statement from EVEN ONE Liberal politician.

        I have owned many of the weapons that are referred to as “assault weapons.” I used to own high capacity magazines as well. From the standpoint of myself (someone who has owned several dozen guns of all types) I don’t see what the big deal is of universal background checks or banning the MANUFACTURE and SALE of high capacity magazines. Sure it sounds cool to blast off 30 or 50 or 100 rounds without reloading but what practical purpose does it serve? You can not hunt with a magazine that large and those types of weapons are the worst to use for personal defense. I would laugh in the face of any one of those nuts who tried to defend their right under the guise of personal defense. If someone truly wants to defend their home I would suggest a shotgun loaded with buckshot (preferably a double barrel as they have no action to jam) and a properly fitted to them medium caliber handgun. A weapon that fires many high velocity (and long range) weapons in the confines of their home may or may not even HIT THEIR TARGET as they are firing these projectiles INDIVIDUALLY (as opposed to the large swath provided by the buckshot) that endanger non-hostile targets that could be their own children through the house or others up to a couple of MILES away.

      • DasMule

        The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or other sporting purposes. It is about the right to defend yourself, your family, and your country.
        The SCOTUS has ruled that police do NOT have an obligation to protect you. Your protection is up to you, and only you. LEOs show up on avg, 7-10mins after you call 911. The avg. time it takes to break in, do what they’re going to do and leave is less that 5min.
        And onto your other point about using buckshot instead of a single projectile. You do know that buckshot will penetrate walls and floors just the same as a 9mm. And the spread of buckshot in most homes would not exceed 6″. And yes, buckshot will go through a person and kill what is behind them. So feel free to spout off about crazy joe’s BS. While your at it, fire the buckshot through your door and kill whatever is on the other side (by the way, that is a felony and so is firing rounds into the air).

      • A rifle round has the potential to travel for miles while buckshot has a much more limited range. A shotgun most certainly is lethal within the confines of your home and depending on its construction materials a little further.
        I have fired numerous rounds from a 12 Gauge at 2 by planks and saw few pellets go beyond it, I have fired as many if not more rounds from rifles at similar targets
        placed several layers thick and regularly had them carry through into objects at great distances beyond them.

    • common sense

      on the other hand, those of us in the IT security field know that good security is going to be inconvenient.

      what is a background check for a law abiding citizen? an inconvenience.

      what is having only 10 rounds instead of 30? an inconvenience.

      these aren’t rights being taken away. this is inconvenience from security.

      • Jess James

        The only difference is who is providing security. Plus, if your server gets hacked, you aren’t dead. Newtown’s security got violated by someone intent on perpetrating violence.

      • If you are attacked by more than one person and you only have 10 rounds, than is not an inconvenience, that is a potential disaster! Contrary to Hollywood, bad guys are not always killed by a single, or even multiple shots. People also do not always hit what they are aiming at in the middle of a gunfight. Even police have less than a 25% hit ratio.

  • Dave

    If a conservative doesn’t like something on the radio, they will change the station or monitor their children’s listening habits. If a liberal doesn’t like something, they try to get it banned. Do any of you remember Tipper and Al Gore and the PMRC? That is the difference between the 2 groups.

    • Nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives have tried to ban gay marriage, abortion, the legalization of marijuana. Hell looking back a few decades ago, conservatives were on the front line to ban segregation and interracial marriage. MOST conservatives do not live by a “live and let live” philosophy. Many of them actively seek out ways in which to prevent others from doing things that really have no effect on someone who claims to be conservative. If you want proof, again, look at the fight on gay marriage. That is not an example of conservatives turning the other cheek. Furthermore, when it comes to guns the lives of many people could be affected(and ENDED) so liberals have a right to actively fight for stricter gun control. This is not simply a matter of happiness…this is a matter of public safety for everyone. Conservatives want to protect our children from gays, but not from guns? That makes ZERO sense.

      • You know nothing of history! Segregation was a southern DEMOCRAT policy!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And those Democrats had nothing in common with Northern Democrats. We called ’em “Dixiecrats” and they were as crazy then as they are now. They weren’t republicans because the former thought of the latter as “liberal elites.”

    • Really? Conservatives just make changes that affect themselves and their own immediate families rather than banning things they don’t like? Is that why conservatives are always trying to ban things like abortions, birth control, certain books, and safety, health care and poverty programs?

    • WOW…congrats!! You just won the prize for The Most Inane Comment of The DAY! LMAO!!!!!!!

  • I think the new NRA president is missing his KKK sheet over his head.. Seems to have had to many big macs too.. Wait I better not post like that these NRA freaks might think I’m a Terrorist.

    • RRG

      Well the KKK does need a new leader to step forward. Things just have not been the same for them since Hurricane Katrina washed away Trent Lott’s historically significant white robes with pointed hats

      • DasMule

        You do know that the KKK was formed by southern democrats right?

      • ah yes but these were not the same democrats of today…there is a huge difference between the “democrats” that created the kkk and those of today…..

      • Not really Jessi. May I remind you that there was still a former KKK Grand Kleagle serving in the Senate as recently as 2010. He was a DEMOCRAT, (Robert Byrd.) The Democrats have historically been against civil rights, voting against the 1964 civil rights act, and even filibustering it. Al Gore’s father was one of those who voted against it. The ones who created Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and turned fire hoses on black civil rights protesters? All Democrats.

      • hiatt111

        yeh, right Jessi,,nice try

      • Right! You keep on believing that crap.

      • You do know democrats today are like the republicans of the Reagan era

      • And Scooby, you might want to ease up on those snacks. They are fogging your perception of reality. Nothing of the Democratic Party is representative of Ronald Reagan’s era of Republicans.

      • Scooby154

        yes they are ive heard it from many people many sources so stop watching fox “news” they would never say anything that would make any Democrat look good

        i know your just going to blow what I’ve just said off
        but i think you even know that republicans today are very far away from the republicans of the Reagan era

      • Always that parroting of “Fox News”. Sorry, don’t watch the news too much and Fox isn’t one of them. I don’t disagree that REPUBLICANS are far from what they were during the Reagan era but you did not say that. You equated DEMOCRATS as being in line with what Republicans were during the time of Reagan and that is preposterous. Both have degraded to political correctness and both are puppets of this regime as well a major corporations. Democrats merely believe that what they are doing is good for this country and Republicans have no idea how to combat this. People continue to believe that the moderate line is best when it proves ineffectual by getting nothing done. This whole idea of gun control is nothing but a smoke screen in getting people to give up their rights. It is not about public safety it is about public control. Both parties need to go.

      • jchastn

        And Republicans today are like the Nazis of the Hitler era.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Them was “Dixiecrats.” They morphed into the Republican party, partly because of Nixon’s “Southern strategy” and partly because the “angry white men” of the Reagan era thought the Democrats were largely for the minorities.

      • EMB

        Democrats of today and Democrats of that historical period are not the same party. Lincoln was a “Republican,” but not the GOP of today, or even some years ago. Party lines and beliefs have changed radically over time.

      • You are right. The same party that had JFK in it has become socialists.

      • coffeepotdome

        The top tier tax rate from 1961 to 1963 (all of JFK’s term) was 91% Obama raised that to 39.6% (less than half of JFK’s top tax rate). Does not seem like we’ve become much more socialist.

    • hiatt111

      Has anybody on this site ever noticed how ugly and vicious “progressives” are. Just down right EVIL. I see now why you all stick together and follow blindly. You have no original thought process.

      • jchastn

        Yes we are just evil. But we are the future and you need to get over this God thing. Before we remove whats left of your brain tissue and feed it to our dogs. So evil we are….

    • Funny how liberals completely forget that the KKK derived out of the
      Democratic Party and Dems have merely changed their tactics of enslaving the population. They are still as racist as they come.

  • Allen, God love ya, you try so hard with most logical arguments. Hope you ultimately win.

    • John Gavel

      Allen is no better than the crazy right- he wastes countless hrs posting rants about how bad republicans are; whats that exactly accomplishing? Guy should put his energy into something else, something alittle more productive- unless you believe the millions that compromise that party are just going to leave America or suddenly change their views bc you guys want them too- live and let live

  • paul

    So you start off by saying that no one wants to take away guns, then go into a list of guns that you dont feel should be privately owned….
    Sounds to me like you want to take away peoples guns.
    And Andrew Cuomo does too, with the NY SAFE law that he recently signed.
    Maybe you’d have more credibility if what you said was actually true……

    • Cite some sources or it is just your word!

      • paul

        Read the law he signed. Read the list of guns Feinstein wants to ban in her AWB.
        She’s on record as having stated that if she had her way, every American would have to surrender their guns.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And you and I know that isn’t going to happen.

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        Yep, not yet anyway. Thanks NRA. And just so you know, the NRA has went from 4 million to 5 MILLION menbers in the last 6 months. Keep talkin out your ass libs, it just makes it easier for the rest of us.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’m an NRA member. We don’t all think like the NRA leadership.

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        Really? Whats your membership number?

      • Jess James

        My bullshit meter just pegged.

      • paul

        Really? Because it already happened in New York, Chicago, California, and New Orleans. People keep.saying, “oh that could never happen”. Did you think we would ever see the day when police would spy on religious groups? Or the government would indefinitely detain someone who can’t be charged with anything? Or that the President of the United States would authorize targeted strikes that kill civilians in countries that we aren’t at war with and have no one raise a peep about it? I couldn’t believe that the Patriot act was signed into law, and I was even more incredulous that it was extended by this administration.
        Keep.telling yourself it will never happen, our rights have been steadily eroded since 2001 by both conservatives and progressives.
        They may call themselves Democrats and Republicans, but they’re both the same thing, they’re all the Power party.

  • I was excited to read this as I am firmly on the side of gun control…..until I read the author’s closed-minded, ignorant comments with regards to the “Civil War”. By definition, it was not a civil war. A civil war is two factions fighting for control of one state. What we had was one faction trying to secede, which, according to our Constitution, they were perfectly within their rights to so, and another faction taking military action against this.
    The Northern myth that the war was about the moral issue of slavery is a fallacy that has been taught by the Victorious side (History is written by the victor.)
    The was had much more to do with economic representation – the north was more than willing to reap the financial benefits of the South’s economy, but in return, reinvested very little of that profit back into southern states. It was quite similar, actually, to the cause of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta: Athens/the North took everyone’s money, but only reinvested it in themselves.
    The idea that the North was any less racially prejudice is preposterous. Many people today refer to that time as the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States, and it has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with our deeper understanding of history, the understanding that Lincoln as the Freedom fighter for the slaves was all a propagandist ploy to paint himself as the moral superior and tarnish the southern attempt to protect their own. Even the Confederate government openly acknowledged that slavery would be eradicated over time. The documents are in the archives to prove it, right along-side the documents that record Lincoln’s racism (he reassured his white constituents that those blacks would never threaten their livelihoods).
    I’m disappointed that the author of this article had to put a spotlight on their ignorance of the intricacies of history. It pretty much negates the rest of his argument, one that I would have otherwise applauded.

    • Who gives a darn about the cival war??? It was over long ago and the south have been sore loosers ever since! Hmm actually kinda like after this last Presidential election! Hmmmmm

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        Ya Jacqueline, who cares about accurate history. Whatever the reason was is irrelevant, the school textbooks told us everything we need to know.

        Jeanie, you do realize that the south was demos right? And that the dems fought the civil rights movement to the very end right? And led the longest filibuster in US history against said movement right?

      • coffeepotdome

        Why did Strom switch then?

    • How do you truly know what the Civil War was about were you there

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        Its called research. You should give it a try instead of blindly following what you are told. The documents are there, you just have to actually want to know the truth.

      • Scooby154

        so how do you know the truth is the actual truth??? as Jacqueline said “(History is written by the victor.)” so do we belive what history says or a bunch of racist bigots from the south say

        the confederacy did have the right to secede but they only did because they might lose their slaves and in my opinion when they seceded they were still on american soil just because some people seceded from our country didn’t mean that they also get are land so the “the war of northern aggression” as they call it to me was just.

        The Confederacy(non-Americans) were on US soil technically they were foreigners invading are land so as I said before in my opinion the Civil War was just

      • Scooby154

        and from what i just looked up about the battle of fort Sumter the confederacy attack first giving america complete right to go to war and save my country i say my country because if you believe that america was the aggressor your wrong the confederacy was given the chance to surrender and they said no and started bombing Fort Sumter

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        Dont really want to get into a 4 month old debate, but here goes.
        DO SOME RESEARCH!! If you think the Civil War was only about slavery you are wrong. Your first paragraph makes zero sense. History is real, facts are facts. I doesnt matter which “side” said it, the facts remain.

        Let me make one thing clear before I continue. I do NOT support slavery. That being said, why was the “other” side less entitled to being called “american”? Just because they fought against the Federal govt leader at the time?

    • Daedalus

      Read the cause of war from the Confederate VP himself, it was completely about preserving slavery!

  • One thing I think is a contributing factor to these people’s problem is that those that are “leading” them and urging them on all have a profit motive. They are only protecting their right to make more and more money regardless of the effect it has on society!

  • lewpubco

    Mr Clifton: What nonsense. First of all, let me state you know nothing about guns. For instance, what exactly is the difference between a “semi-automatic” weapon you would so graciously allow the public to own and an “assault weapon” which you are against? Other than appearance, can you name a single function of difference? I know, I know, they are “uglier” and more “threatening” looking. I know they scare you, but that’s because you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Magazine size: I’m so glad you would allow up to ten rounds. How gracious of you. But what about eleven, or twelve, or just a few more? What is really the difference? It’s a flat out silly argument. Anyone with any experience can change out magazines in seconds. Just plain silly.

    Finally – Background checks: What exactly is the “check” you have in mind? Police records? Mental Health Records? Dental records? Credit check? This Universal check without stipulation of details leaves many of us wondering exactly how far that goes. Can you answer this with actualy specificity? I think not.

    You’re pretty good at throwing around terms like “imbecile” and “lunatic” when frankly you’re just a poser who knows far less than those you criticize. You’re just another left-wing phoney.

    • Your own words

      Magazine size: I’m so glad you would allow up to ten rounds. How gracious of you. But what about eleven, or twelve, or just a few more? What is really the difference? It’s a flat out silly argument. Anyone with any experience can change out magazines in seconds. Just plain silly.

      So if you’re so experienced and can change a clip that fast why do you care how many are in their

      • lewpubco

        That’s not the point. it’s a bogus argument. None of this nonsense changes anything. Here’s a point: There are an estimated 100,000 gang members in Chicago, presumably many with guns. The police know they are illegal, why can’t they take them away? They can “background check” the legal purchaser but can’t get one gun off a gangbanger. People get all overwrought over laws, and ignore those who ignore the laws. That’s the problem.

  • Jess James

    I guess you haven’t been paying attention to Feinstien, Bloomer, Shoomer, Shotgun Joe, Holder, Lautenbooger, HCI and the Brady Bunch. They have made it clear that they plan to ban as much as they can now and more later.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Show me.

      • Search youtube…you can show yourself while listening to their own spoken words.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Nope, you like to make claims, you need to back them up.

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        “I’m used to being told what to think and have everything handed to me”- suburban…..

      • Jess James

        Ignorance is Bliss.

      • Don’t ask to be spoon-fed information. Research the opposing arguments’ statements yourself, don’t expect it to be handed to you. Free your mind and think.

      • Jess James

        Go search youtube. I can’t post the links here. Ignorance is Bliss.

  • Yeah, just like Hitler didn’t want their guns either, they called it “registration” and let’s face it, this administration has been pushing thresholds since day one. Have you ever lost your freedoms? NO. Do you know why? Because there are Americans that call things as they see them and have the balls to challenge it. You can bet your democratic denial that if these types of Americans did not exist and this was a country of just sheep like yourself we would not be the “Land of the free n the home of the brave” it would have the word “SLAVE” in there somewhere. But as long as we have sheep, we’ll continue to have that tribal mentality where we never question the leadership’s intentions. You know, because this government has never attempted anything that isn’t with its citizens best interest at heart. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but some stink more than others. Yours, Sir hasn’t seen soap m water for a year…

    • Who are you to call someone a sheep if anyone is sheep its the republicans and Fox “News” in my opinion

      • paul

        Who are you to call those people sheep?

      • ? Let me ask you this, what have you ever done for this country asides from being a blind led sheep? I have fought in two different conflicts for this nation, hold several medals and have raised 4 boys, three of which are soldiers n one is in Afghanistan now. That’s who the [email protected] I am.

      • So you can call a group sheep, but I can’t? Let me ask you this, what have you ever done for this country asides from being a blind led sheep? I have fought in two different conflicts for this nation, hold several medals and have raised 4 boys, three of which are soldiers n one is in Afghanistan now. That’s who the [email protected] I am.

      • So, you’re saying that when democrats don’t question the government’s motives for gun control laws, we are sheep, blindly led without complaint.

        Only, when you “fought in two different conflicts for this nation”, and didn’t question the motives of the government for deploying you and your fellow soldiers to fight in those conflicts, you, sir, are a patriot.

        Sounds almost as one-sided as you claim our arguments are, to me.

  • love it but the morons who love guns.. for what ever sick reason will not recognize its the truth.. guns WILL destroy america! because idiots own them.

    • hiatt111

      rofl….. the sky is falling, the sky is falling

  • Letsmakeaintelligentchange

    You already have to go through a background check when buying a gun at any store. Your misleading the public in saying you don’t. But I suppose that is the purpose of this intire article.

    The problem with you and the liberal media is that you never tell the truth and make statements that are false and misleading.
    The NRA respresent people in America that don’t want another Sandy Hook or any other mass murder . You however think that the new laws that you want to pass will stop another mass murder.
    Look up SSRI uptake drugs and you will see that the problem is our mental health community. 1-2 % of people who take SSRI uptake drugs commit suicide or murder. Then look a good reliable statistics on the mass murders and suicides and you will see the coincide.
    So in conclusion we need to make sure mentally ill people don’t get firearms.
    Also it is a problem with our society and the way they parent or don’t parent thier children.
    Magazine limits, semi auto gun limits didn’t work before and they won’t work now.
    If we would focus on the mental health issue and parenting issues this would clear up.

    • Dosomethingintelligentforonce

      The liberals and media could start by not being purposely misleading and start telling the truth.
      Tell me how sending 200 AR-15 into Mexico by the BAFT helped solve our border tension problems with Mexico…But our government did that and it’s fully documented…
      Now those guns are killing people in Mexico and the BATF gave them to them.
      How do you feel about that?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        and you realize that started under the Bush administration?

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        And you realize that Bush actually tracked those weapons instead of waiting for them to show up at crime scenes?

  • nd47

    Maybe if teachers could teach like they should, more critical thinking would occur, teaching to the test as they have to do now eliminates critical and analytical thinking and just emphasizes rote answers without thinking about what is being said.

  • Dennis

    can you imagine this fat ass blowhard going up against the best trained soldiers on the planet?

    • Can you imagine 30 million of them going against an army that has only about 2 million active members, (of whom 75%+ would be on the NRA’s side?)

    • hiatt111

      typical venom spewed from the pie hole of an blinded lemming.

  • The only lunatic I have heard from today,
    is you. The 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to protect ourselves from danger, even if it is coming from our own Government. Remember, several States were not a part of the Union in the beginning and I think you may see many States withdraw again.
    The Government has got to big and the public servants that were to run it for the people by the people have BECOME THE MASTERS NOT THE SERVANTS ANYMORE and created a separate class of people for them selves with higher pay and benefit packages that we do not get to participate in. Now was that a right given to them in the Constitution? The answer is, NO!

    • The 2ND Amendment also says well regulated your gun isn’t being taken away so calm down

      • “Regulated” has more than one meaning. In this case, it means “functioning properly”, as in well trained or practiced, NOT government controlled.

      • The term well regulated in the 1700 referred to a properly working mechanism, IE: a firearm in good repair. Look it up…

      • Scooby154

        well its now the 2000’s and also america wasnt even founded till 1776 so their was no such thing as the 2nd amendment in 1700 do some research before you try to bash someone dude

      • Scooby154

        Amendment II

        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.

        Read that a well regulated militia

  • Kareng

    So Wayne La Pierre praised the Boston police while saying the government wants his guns. Does he not realize that the police department is a governmental entity.

    • IFC_Buzzkill

      And you make sense how? Did he say that he wanted the police to not have guns?

      BTW, the police didnt find him, a citizen did while the police were busy violating the 4th Amendment.

    • The FEDERAL government retard!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Why you so afraid of the Federal government? Are you a terrorist?

    • Jess James

      He didn’t approve of Warrantless searches. Nice try.

  • Look at this buffoon. Look at this guy. This is the NRA’s new fearless leader ?? He looks more like a pig than anything else I could describe.

    • hiatt111

      Your post is overflowing with intellect and substance Russell. 2nd or 3rd grade graduate?

  • RRG

    That fat piece of garbage, Jim Porter, needs to put his money where his mouth is and go through his suggested military training to fight against tyranny. My bet would be that he couldn’t make it through a day without suffering cardiac arrest, thus leaving the NRA having to elect a new president as his replacement.

    • hiatt111

      Typical empty garbage spewed from a liberal pie hole. When you cannot win a debate on substance, lower yourself to name calling and insults. You libs are comic relief at best.

      • hiatt111

        oops, i just lowered my mental capacity to lib status. Momentary lapse of reason…sorry

  • Chuck

    OK so who are you to tell me how many rounds I need to defend myself? Did you know the M/16 started as a CIVILIAN RIFLE!!! Please look this up before you say that AR-15s don’t belong in civilian hands. If you do some research you see they started with Armalite and was adapted by the Military. Also, who are you to tell me what type of gun I can use to defend my home? How does someone else know what is best for a female to shoot as well? You just don’t want to understand that once they ban the ARs, next step is to not let the ones that are already out be transferred to family when you die making them illegal. Now you make legal gun owners criminals. How about you leave legal gun owners alone and go after criminals. Stop trying to make law abiding citizens criminals.

    • Conservative: Socialist liberals just want to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. You know Hitler banned guns too, right? Bacon kills people every year, guess you people believe we should ban bacon? Obesity kills people every day, should we ban the spoons people use to eat with? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The only way to stop bad people with guns, are good people with guns. Our government fears an armed populace! You’ll get my guns when you take them from my cold dead hands.

      This is you

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      They don’t belong in civilian hands. And you don’t need to be so paranoid.

      • One could argue that the constitution makes an obligation of citizens to arm themselves equally to the government arms.

        Your argument is not valid.

      • Hey suburbancumm, come to Chicago n walk down a certain neighborhood n if you make it, we’ll ask you why you’re paranoid. Ok?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I live in the Chicago suburbs. Most gun nuts live in the south, not the south side of Chicago. Where do you live?

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        Ya right. And your a NRA member, and Shitcago doesnt have the highest homicide and corruption rates in the nation. All led by a “progressive” legislature. Go figure..

      • I live in the North side of Chicago m I bet u don’t live in Englewood n you’re not black. So have taken that walk yet? You havnt n you never will, because like all the other “elitist” you was raised in a bubble. Shielded n unexposed to many things. That’s great just probably means u had good parents, but pretend you are smart enough to understand that there’s enough bad in the world beyond your understanding and tha there those of us out there that have seen it n know for fact it exist. You call paranoia, some call it inevitable. You don’t know what you don’t know.. Keep your mouth shut n when sh!7 goes down just duck, let the real Americans take care of it. If we go down we go down as free people. Then you can have whatever is left.

      • I haven’t grown up in any bubble. I come from a long line of blue-collar, pipeline-employed, southerners who are surrounded on a daily basis by crime, theft, shootings, stabbings, barroom brawls, domestic abuse cases, child neglect cases, rampant drug use and peddling, alcoholic adolescent-minded assholes who like to pull a gun instead of man up and fight – you name it.

        I can tell you this – the answer to all that is not having everyone carrying a gun. If you carry a gun, and there is any type of altercation, any other party who is also carrying a gun – if they haven’t yet pulled – will do so, when they see that you carry.

        This is how shootings happen. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with going and getting your full, legal, trained, paper-proven and documented licensing to carry a concealed firearm. There is nothing wrong with having a properly-licensed and legally-carried sidearm in your vehicle.

        However, this is for trained individuals who are capable of responsible gun use, only. Not for everyone who wants to go and buy a gun, for “protection”. You get someone who isn’t trained properly into a situation where they feel scared, or threatened, and suddenly what might have ended with a few harsh words, or a fist fight at the most, suddenly becomes a shooting.

        That is all most of the liberals I know are trying to avoid – putting a gun into the hands of any idiot that can afford to buy one – without any type of documented training and assurance that they will use it responsibly. I don’t want guns taken from people who keep them locked up safely, out of the reach of their children. I just want them taken from people who have a history of violence or mental illness.

      • I’m guessing you don’t have one otherwise you’d already know that there are training requirements to have a CCW. you assume that anyone who can afford a gun will carry one. That is the law. I was addressing suburbancumm. But I agree with you on requirements but your assumptions are just that. Have you ever lived in a state where CCW is legal? If you did you’d know that your scenario where people that are in any altercation will draw on each other, that has happened awww never. On the contrary, crimes are basically non existent (involving CCW licensees) and people are polite to each other. Another thing you never see is road rage. Why? Because in the back of everyone’s mind is the realization that he/she may well be armed. So you see have been in a bubble. Just a fucked up one.

      • Have you ever been to Louisiana??? Every asshole in this state has a rifle, shotgun, and half the time a handgun hanging on a rack that goes above the rear seats on their jacked up “hunting” truck. No one gives a rat’s ass about having a CCW here.

        What I was saying is that of the three times I have witnessed someone pull out a gun – it was some scared teenage-to-early-twenties kid, who thought it would keep him from being thrown a beating in a parking lot – or that it would make him look tough to a crowd of his perceived peers.

        These are the people who will pull on you, if you are already in a state of heated argument with them, etc. and they notice that you are carrying.

        I in no way meant that two trained and licenced individuals would pull guns on each other.

      • Jess James

        Can’t get one in Chicago. That may change in the future.

      • I can tell you one thing for sure: If everyone knows everyone else is armed, society becomes much more polite. That is why crime goes down when all are allowed to be armed.

      • Because the days in the West, when everyone carried firearms on their hips, were marked by such peace and lack of bloodshed…

      • Thomas Medford

        You don’t know the true history of the west, do you? That “Wild West” you saw in Hollywood movies… About as realistic as seeing shooting car chases on your way to the grocery store. Ask yourself, why they had to keep re-using Tombstone. Why they always talked about the OK Corral. It’s because those kinds of things were so rare. Aside from a few places, the west was really quite peaceful. I can only think of one incident in the old west where there were two guys squaring off against each other. One died, the other was Bill Hickok.
        There were others, but those were so very rare as to be the equivalent of lightning strikes. Shootouts were as rare then as they are now. But people did have a healthy respect for each other. Heck, even then not everyone carried. The shootout at the OK Corral had the Earps tucking their firearms into their waistbands, because they believed that nobody was carrying.

      • Why would you willingly take a stroll through a Chicago neighborhood, known for gun violence? An excuse to pull your own gun and get some blood on your hands, perhaps?

      • hiatt111

        Matt that is just silly.

      • Really? Unless you’re a cop, you have no business walking around a neighborhood known for gun violence, whether you’re armed or unarmed – especially at night.

        If you’re an officer of the law, then you are legally armed, and trained in the proper use of a firearm, as well as in arrest, restraint, and control techniques, non-lethal weaponry, etc. – If it is your job to patrol these neighborhoods, that is both understandable and commendable.

        If you live in one of these neighborhoods, and cannot avoid it by moving, due to economic factors, or for any legitimate reason, then I suggest purchasing a legal-to-own firearm, such as a semi-automatic pistol or a revolver, or even a shotgun – and placing it in a safe and secure place, so that you might have access to it in the event of a home invasion.

        If you are not legally allowed, for some reason, to purchase said firearms, I suggest you either come by one in some other fashion, or invest in some other form of self protection, such as martial arts classes – something practical, Krav Maga or even traditional western boxing.

        In addition to that avenue of self-preservation, I would suggest arming yourself with something effective and easy to use, which is not an illegal weapon. Some practical suggestions are baseball bats, crowbars, axes, lead pipes, “tire thumpers” (sold in truckstops the nation over) or any other commonplace item that can be used to cause grievous bodily harm to a potential attacker or intruder.

        If none of that sounds reasonable to you, I suggest you invest in some high-quality locks and settle in for a long stay, because you clearly live somewhere that is too hostile for you to handle, and you are probably in a good deal of danger even as you read this.

      • Jess James

        Too bad the people living there have no choice and the cops obviously can’t protect them.

      • The supreme court is on record saying that the cops have no duty to protect anyone but themselves.

      • Yep…sad state of affairs isn’t it.

      • Yes, that’s true – people living there have no choice. But what makes anyone think that if the cops can’t protect them, they will be able to protect themselves, if they just have a gun?

        For some people, who are trained in the use of a gun under stress – having a gun might actually save them from a violent crime.

        For the rest of the people who have no real training – it is just as likely that the gun will be used on them by the criminal, that the will shoot through the wall of their apartment and kill an innocent bystander, or that they will not be able to effectively bring the gun into play in the midst of an altercation – as it is that the gun will somehow magically stop a crime.

      • Who are you to say what business anyone has to be anywhere in public? What if they had to work a late shift, or a car broke down, or had to make an emergency trip through.

        I also do not agree with your recommendation that those not legally allowed to own firearms should ‘come by one in some other fashion’. You are in fact encouraging someone to become criminal.

      • My point is that if you feel that you need a gun in order to feel safe, and you are so concerned that “only criminals will have guns” – then stop whining about it online, and do what 90% of gun owners have done at one time, or another – go buy a gun from “a guy” and keep it somewhere safe, but accessible in your home. Don’t brandish it around in public.

        As far as being in a certain neighborhood in “public” at night, when you are of a demographic that stands out as a target in that neighborhood – the police will even tell you this. “Stay out of those neighborhoods, if at all possible – no good will come of it.” It sounds to me like you are saying you should be able to go where you damn well please, and that you should be able to shoot anyone who attacks you – unfortunately, life is not a Charles Bronson movie.

        If you are involved in a violent crime in a violence-prone neighborhood, in which you do not reside, the first thing the police are going to want to know – assuming you’re still alive – is what you were doing there in the first place. They are going to treat you as if you provoked the attack – and thanks to the mentality of the “gun thugs” that attack people, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time – you are provoking them by being there.

        If you want to blame someone, blame those who make it nearly impossible for these gun-carrying criminals to get an education and make something of themselves. They may be worthless assholes now, but once upon a time, they were just kids who could’ve done better, if anyone had bothered to care enough to actually help in some meaningful way.

      • I was addressing the person that asked why we are so paranoid. That would provide a good indication as to why. If you’re going to interject on something that wasn’t addressed at you at least have more intelligence than a Frisbee when you read it.

      • There is no gun violence in Chicago. It is illegal to own a gun. Therefore be defacto, no one has a firearm. Chicago is a Disney inspired utopia. To say otherwise would mean that all of those super restrictive gun laws are not working.

      • This is just silly.

      • Chuck

        So rifles that started in civilian hands don’t belong in civilian hands? Ok sure…. How did my statement come across paranoid? Stating facts based on bills that have been presented before is not paranoid.

      • You better check the Constitution dummy.

      • Enjoy being a subject rather than a free man.

      • Why are you so important that your opinion should be taken as law?

    • Cynthia

      You just proved the justification for this mans letter. You need to educate yourself, not just on the subject at hand, but in general. And seek help for your mental instability. It might help clear up some of your conspiracy theories. You have no argument at all, you just provided for a good laugh and “you’ve got to be kidding me” moment. Get some education, some medication, get a grip and be well.

      • John Gavel

        This mans letter is ridiculous- absolutely ridiculous. What he is saying, ultimately is that reducing the number of rounds in a magazine will save lives- really? Ok, do you know how easy it is to reload a weapon? especially a handgun? seconds.Do you know how many handguns an individual can carry on person? Ill tell you its more than just one. Not one line in this article speaks about mental illness- and that is the underlying issue. These shooters, like aurora or vtech, were all under the care of mental professionals. Instead of limiting the guns from shooting 20 rounds to 10, we could put our energy into helping these individuals actually receive care.

        If you believe reducing the capability of weapons will solve homicides- look at the city of Chicago, strictest gun laws in the USA, hundreds of homicides a year and rarely is it an AR15. All are usually handguns and that has not stopped innocent victims from being killed.

        You say get an education- have you used one of the weapons? Or are you just speaking off of emotions and what others have told you? Taking these weapons from healthy law abiding citizens is not the answer.

      • So, what you’re saying is that it takes only seconds to reload a gun, and that it’s easy to carry several handguns on your person… yet you absolutely, positively, HAVE to have a high-capacity magazine? Where did you learn logic?

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        So why do the police and military need them? Maybe we should just train them how to reload faster.

      • City Police accross the country carry a 20-clip,except the riot police.

      • The military and police are trained to shoot human beings, securing the safety of the population, so that you don’t have the need for high-capacity magazines and rapid-firing assault weapons, under most circumstances.

        If you go and train in a similar fashion, then fine – own whatever is legal for you to own, having been properly trained and licensed to own it.

        If what you want is still not legal for you to own, I suggest you make do with what is legal for you to own. If you are properly trained, that shouldn’t be too difficult.

      • hiatt111

        Once again Matt…………….we are not the ones promoting a ban on something that is not logical to ban.. You are a tad bit confused.

      • It is logical to ban them for the simple reason that instead of having to reload, under fire – not the way “sports shooters” do it – on the range without fear of being shot by the police – an armed psychopath can just keep shooting with the same clip until all 20+ rounds are expended.

        It is also somewhat easier to conceal a single clip or magazine – most likely already inserted into the weapon – than it is to conceal several extras on your person.

      • John Gavel

        Where did i say i must have a high capacity magazine? i already have them. so do millions of gun owners in america- guuessss what weems- they arent going anywhere hahaha

      • Yes, many people I know and respect have them. I’m not even suggesting that they take the ones in existence – they would have to offer some sort of monetary compensation for that to be remotely fair to the average gun enthusiast, who has no problem passing a background check.

        I’d just like to see it be harder to buy them – in much the same way you can buy a silencer or suppressor legally, if you are willing to go through enough paperwork and red tape.

      • John Gavel

        Australia did one of those buy back programs- great way to disarm a population. And what you are purposing- w silencers is like apples to oranges. Silencers make your gun more deadly- like allowing one to be fully auto. Limiting the number of rounds will no change the stopping power of a gun- just gonna make you feel better and look like you did something. Which i guess is the issue w the ar15 to begin w- its appareance

      • A silencer does not make any gun more deadly…it only makes the sound from it harder to discern.

      • Once again… I was not comparing silencers to high-capacity magazines, based on their level of “deadliness” – or the perceived level of “deadliness” that they could add to a firearm.

        I was simply using silencers as a reference most gun owners would recognize, in order to illustrate the level of personal involvement I would like to see it take to purchase a high capacity magazine.

        As silencers are legal to buy and own – but not typically sold over the counter, even in gun stores.

      • No, what we are saying is the government does not have the right to limit the magazine capacity and they are simply pointing out that the governments reasoning is flawed.

        Are these two concepts really that hard for you to comprehend?

      • As I stated some twelve hours ago:

        (Quoted from my response to hiatt111) It is logical to limit the magazine capacity – even though it does not diminish the deadliness of the bullets –

        “For the simple reason that instead of having to reload, under stress, possibly under fire – not the way “sports shooters” do it (quickly, without adrenaline pumping or hands shaking, on the range, without fear of being shot by the police) an armed psychopath can just keep shooting with the same clip until all 20+ rounds are expended.

        It is also somewhat easier to conceal a single clip or magazine – most likely already inserted into the weapon – than it is to conceal several extras on your person.”

      • cam

        you do realize the armed bystanders tackled Jared Lee Loughner while he was reloading instead of drawing their weapons?

      • John Gavel

        Did they have weapons to draw cam?

      • John Gavel

        Armed bystanders tackled Jared? Huh, thats news i guess bc every article ive seen says nothing of them being armed as well. They were retired military. some were in their 60s but i saw nothing of someone being armed and deciding to tackle him instead of discharging their weapon? i mean why else are you carrying it, right?

      • Chuck

        LOL I like how you can immediately go into how mentally unstable you think I am. Unfortunately, the state where I have my carry permit and where I get to work with many Police officers from many different areas begs to differ. Let me be clear, I don’t trust either party to be honest with you, the whole system has gone to shit. The only thing I know is the truth. If Dianne Fudstein and her goons say they would take all the guns, “Mr and Ms America turn your guns in” Remember that!
        Oh yeah be well LOL

      • If you have a concealed carry permit, I don’t understand what you’re concerned about… Clearly, you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a responsible individual, who should have no reason to fear any proposed gun control laws.

      • Chuck

        Really? So just because I have my guns, I should just lay down and let you take that right from someone else. I know the game. I let you ban the rifles then you make it so I can’t give them to my family so they disappear. You side says your not after my guns but go after the most Popular rifles in America. And FYI they are not Hi capacity magazines, they are standard capacity magazines. I will ask you this, why do you have a problem with people being able to choose what firearm they are most proficient with to protect themselves. And NO I am not one of those we should have hand grenades and fully auto rifles guys so let it go.

    • You are factually incorrect. It started as the original AR15 designed as an improvement of the AR10, which was designed for pilots in combat. The company failed at winning army contracts on the AR10 and the first versions of the AR10 and AR15 are all select fire. There is no M16 civilian rifle for that matter.

      The current AR15 is what you are referring to.

      • Chuck

        I stand corrected, the information I looked up was false. But cool thing about that is some people can admit when they are wrong 🙂

      • I still see conflicting stories on it when searching AR15. If you search AR10 you will see the entire story.

      • Chuck

        Um found one of the original articles on the AR …

        “The AR was first designed as a civilian sporting rifle and would not become the M16 until the military tested it and submitted their requirement for a select-fire version on time for the Vietnam War. The photograph above this article demonstrates an original Colt AR-15 advertisement from fifty years ago. The original AR-15 Sporter was never an automatic rifle, rather, the M16 became the select fire rifle after the success of the semi-automatic AR-15 in the civilian market, and in military field testing when General Curtis LeMay of Strategic Air Command thought it would be the perfect fit for Air Force MP’s. Thus, the M16 was born”

      • You missed one point of history: Colt did not make the original AR15. It did procure the license to manufacture the AR15 from Armalite, which designed it ORIGINALLY as a military weapon only, based on the AR10 except with the government mandated 22cal bullet size limit.

      • Oh, here is the one part most people miss:
        In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10/AR-15 to Colt firearms, who successfully marketed the AR-15 to the U.S. military. They were made with select fire, with the civilian semi auto version marketed and sold at a later date.

    • BackSeatJesus

      I’m thinking I probably need grenades and a flame thrower to defend myself. Yep, I think that would do it.

    • Directly from Wikipedia, because while I own guns, I am not an aficionado:

      “The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as an assault rifle for the United States armed forces. [8] Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire version of the AR-15 entered the U.S. military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 for civilian sales in 1963.[9]
      Although the name “AR-15″ remains a Colt registered trademark, variants
      of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various
      names by multiple manufacturers.”

      Where does that say that the rifle was sold, in fully automatic, select-fire form, to civilians? They still sell the semi-auto version to civilians, and no one wants to change that. We don’t think that civilians need fully-automatic weapons, with large-capacity magazines, for any other reason that what you all honestly want them for: your fantasy of taking out a government-sent deathsquad, who is coming to rape and pillage your neighborhood.

      That is not going to happen – and if it ever by some horrible chain of events – did happen… it would be a Republican-funded deathsquad, you can bet your ass.

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        You do understand that the ban was on semi auto scary looking weapons? The whole point was to ban them. I’d say you are confused on what a full auto vs. semi auto is. Full autos have been banned with a very few exceptions since 1936. If you want to be a valid voice in the argument you should at least understand the topic.

      • I am fully aware of the difference between semi and full automatic. The law that was in effect from 1994 until 2004 didn’t stop anyone I know from getting rid of their AR15… and I do know of a few – one being an uncle of mine.

        The fact is, for the most part – not entirely – they were banning weapons that can be modified relatively easily to fire as either fully-automatic, or very close to fully-automatic. Have you seen the recoil-powered stocks that make the AR fire nearly as fast as an M16? Because I have. Any half-assed gunsmith who knows how to modify a receiver can turn one of those weapons into a full-auto streetsweeper.

        I know this, because modified rifles of this type are for sale “on the low” all over the south – I know people who own them. These people, fortunately, just like showing them off at bonfires on private land, and don’t plan to use them to shoot at agents of the federal government.

        The other rifles, shotguns, and handguns that were to be banned, semi-automatic though they were, only became bannable with the addition of unnecessarily militarized parts, such as flash suppressors, grenade launchers (which I found amusing) – threaded barrels and bayonet mounts.

        Give me a good reason why a civilian needs any of those things for home defense.

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        Excluding the bump fire stock, which does NOT make a rifle full auto by definition, if someone were to modify a gun of any sort to fire full auto without the proper federal license they commit a fed felony. Its illegal. Oh, not the scary bayonet mount! When was the last time someone was killed with a bayonet? Flash suppressors make a rifle more deadly? How is that? Who gives a shit if yu have a “grenade launcher” on your rifle, you cant buy M203 rounds.

        Then theres yet another problem with the list of “scary parts” that would make a rifle illegal. A collapsible stock. Oh crap that thing makes ANY rifle a death machine with a mind of its own. And “pistol” grips. Those things make me tremble in fear every time I see one!! And “barrel shrouds” Oh the humanity!!

      • A flash suppressor does two things: Firstly, it helps to preserve the vision of the shooter, making acquiring targets beyond the end of the barrel faster, easier, and more accurate. Secondly, it makes the flash of the gun more difficult to see – causing those being shot at to have difficulty pinpointing the source of the shooting.

        A bayonet mount, I included in the list because the only purpose for attaching a knife to a gun is to stab a human being, if you run low on ammunition, or simply wish to conserve it. It is a little blatantly aggressive, don’t you think? If you’re not planning on using it as a weapon – what do you need it for?

        The grenade launcher is just ridiculous – why would you buy one? Even if you can’t buy the rounds for one, the mere fact that you would want to own one suggests that at some point, you’d like to blow some shit up, at range from your position – further range than you can accurately throw.

        The collapsible stock and pistol grip make the rifle easier to transport and conceal. Yes, they are handy for sport shooting, but they are also handy for sneaking a rifle into an office building or a school.

        As far as committing a felony by modifying a receiver – the ban is not to stop you from modifying a gun that you bought legally – it is to stop the kind of person who would modify it, and then go and shoot civilians with it – from doing it. The felony charge is enough to discourage you, not them. The ban of the firearm itself is a more effective deterrent.

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        I’m beginning to think that you ALMOST know what you are talking about. Wikipedia works well for you doesnt it.
        Flash suppressors are for the benefit of the shooter first and foremost. You think it would be better to be firing blind after the first shot? And they only make a difference in low light. In the bright daytime you wouldnt even notice a difference.
        Again, how many people have been killed by a fixed bayonet? Solution looking for a problem..
        “Grenade launchers” are detachable. The only “ammo” you can buy are smoke rounds and good luck finding those. Big frikin deal…
        A collapsible stock is made to fit different size people, or changing clothing (tshirt vs winter wear and thick coat, or even bulky ballistic vests.) Period. Ever heard of pull length? Go back to wiki and look that one up. If one were intending to shorten stock length for concealment would it be better to cut down a wood stock? Thats not illegal, yet.
        “Pistol grips” do certainly allow for better control. No doubt. But it has absolutely nothing to do with concealment. God forbid a plastic piece that makes a person more accurate be allowed. Its always much better to be less accurate isnt it?
        The moral of the story is that the SCARY parts arent really bad, just they look scary to those who dont know better. That and any ban wont make a bit of difference.

      • hiatt111

        deathsquad……libs are a hoot

      • When I say “deathsquad” I’m using as much sarcasm as humanly possible, although it is very difficult to convey through text. I used that term because that is what the gun-crazy “cold dead hands” crowd seems to think is going to knock on their door, as if they’re Tony Montana in the final scenes of Scarface.

      • No one wants to change that? The AR15 is the POSTER CHILD of the recent campaign.

        …it was also a Stoner before it was an AR15, and a civilian piece. These have been around for 50+ years. The gun hasn’t changed — The medication and the family unit sure have, though.

    • Chuck your are correct! And to those who “classify” a strong gun supported as a right wing nut, now who is making a large generalization? FYI as a life long westerner, middle of the road politically minded person and a gun owner since age 10 IT IS NOT THE TOOL BUT THE ASS HOLE BEHIND IT. If the existing gun laws would be enforced, if the mother of the school killer had not given her son access to them knowing he was mentally unstable, if the University of Colorado and his shrink had made the notifications to the authorities that the theater killer was unstable and had made threats of violence THEN MAYBE NONE OF THESE SICK CRIMES might of not happened. Take a look at Chicago and all of their killings in just the last week. Chicago already has one of the strongest gun laws in the nation. How are they working? Why not, because criminals do not go by the law, that is why they are called CRIMINALS!

  • RRG

    Employers require background checks and drug tests before hiring someone, yet I don’t hear the anti background check people screaming about how this violates their constitutional rights. It seems to me that the people screaming and ranting the loudest about background checks would not pass one in the first place.

    • We already have background checks you moron. It’s called NICS, (National Instant Check System.)

      • ddchief

        NICS only applies to sales from federally licensed dealers. It only extends to private sales if state law requires it, and only 31 do. Furthermore, NCIS does not apply to private sales, even at a gun show, where licensed dealers, in the same room, HAVE to. This is the problem federal background checks were trying to solve. Not sure who would not want those things, unless they were doing something wrong.
        Not sure why you felt the need to insult someone…especially since the point you were trying to make is incomplete.

      • John Gavel

        Cant get prescription pills from a pharmacy unless you have a prescription- alot of laws out there. Illegal to get sell prescription drugs if you are not a pharmacist. How hard is it to buy prescription drugs again? drugs in general? how are those gun laws working in a city like chicago? you can have the legislation and laws you want- criminals will still break them. Fix the mentally ill, give them treatment- thats the issue here

      • Jess James

        100% of new firearms go through an FFL. The majority of used ones do as well.

    • IFC_Buzzkill

      Is employment a Constitutional Right? Lets have BG checks and drug tests to vote. Oh, and a valid ID which proves you are a US citizen. That should be fair right? Why not? You scared?

      • We should absolutely have background checks and drug tests in order for someone to have the right to vote. I’ll go a step further, and say you should have to pass some sort of reasonable, adult-level intelligence test, before being allowed to vote. You have to pass one to become a member of the armed forces.

      • Well, except for the marines… (j/k folks…)

      • cam

        hard to pursue happiness when you don’t have a job, don’t you think?

    • Employers are not limited in how they choose. The government is limited by the constitution.

      • RRG

        So you are telling that corporations and most state governments are exempt from the Constitution when it comes to hiring practices?

  • Actually it is these very people who shouldn’t own firearms because they’re mentally deranged. Which is also why they are afraid of background checks. Because then people will know for a fact that they’re nuts and they won’t get to keep their dangerous weapons that they apparently want to threaten the rest of us with. It’s about time something is done about that.

    • We already have background checks you moron.

      “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the
      conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all
      conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have
      prepared their own downfall by doing so.” – Adolph Hitler

      So…why are liberals so eager to take guns away from all but the government?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You don’t have background checks at gun shows and you can do straw purchases. And Hitler liberalized gun laws, except, of course, for Jews. Why are you so paranoid?

      • Concerned

        Yes we do have background checks at gun shows.

      • John Gavel

        You bought a gun at a gun show and didnt receive a background check? where?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Gun Shows by State

        A total of 11 states require background checks for at least some gun
        purchases at gun shows. Seven of those states require background checks
        for all gun purchases, while four states require background checks for
        only handgun purchases.

        The seven states requiring background checks for all purchases include:
        New York
        Rhode Island

        The four states requiring background checks for only handgun purchases include:

        New Jersey

        In Florida, private firearms purchases are subject to background checks in some jurisdictions but not across the entire state. There are no laws regulating private firearms sales at gun shows in the remaining
        33 states.

      • Jess James

        Actually, Federal and state law applies to private firearm sales. I live in Florida and can’t sell a handgun to someone out of state. If I sell a long gun out of state, it has to be done through an ffl. You can’t sell to someone you think or know is a criminal etc.

      • You are slightly wrong about Florida.
        The State government overruled all local/county use of non state government ordinances regarding firearms.

        The state law is now the only legally allowed law regarding firearms transfers throughout Florida. The only background requirement for private sales is the buyer must have Florida issued photo ID proof of being a Florida resident and the seller must ask any person they transfer transfer a weapon to if they are ineligible to own weapons and the seller is not allowed to provide a weapon to anyone known to be ineligible. Failure to meet these requirements will land you in jail.

      • I live in Louisiana, and have bought at least three handguns at local gun & knife shows. Not once have I had any trouble paying for the gun, walking out, with no questions asked – from a private seller. I was asked to provide identification for the purposes of proving legal age, but nothing was called in or verified before I took my gun and walked away.

      • Jess James

        If you are a criminal or involuntarily committed, you broke the law. However, you would and could have done the same thing of the premises.

      • Guest

        Yes, that’s my whole point. I could’ve been anyone, with any kind of crazy-ass background, fraught with cases of domestic abuse, attempted robbery, or assault. They had no idea, because they didn’t do much “background checking” at all, other than looking at my driver’s license, writing down the info on our two-ply carbon-copy receipt, and handing the both the gun and my copy.

        Cash in hand to gun in hand, total elapsed time, fewer than three minutes, with no swiping of the driver’s license magnetic strip, no phone calls or computer entries made.

      • Yes, that’s my whole point. I could’ve been anyone, with any kind of crazy-ass background, fraught with cases of domestic abuse, attempted robbery, or assault. They had no idea, because they didn’t do much “background checking” at all, other than looking at my driver’s license, writing down the info on our two-ply carbon-copy receipt, and handing me both the gun, and my copy of said receipt.

        Cash in hand to gun in hand, total elapsed time, fewer than three minutes, with no swiping of the driver’s license magnetic strip, no phone calls or computer entries made.

      • You don’t have background checks in the back alleys of Chicago streets either, but there are still limitless supplies of guns for criminals.

        The background check is effectively nothing more than a tax for the law abiding. Does absolutely nothing to prevent crime and actually causes more crime by limiting self defense.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So what? I have to register my car and pay for tags. If you are afraid you won’t pass a background check, then maybe you shouldn’t have a gun. I have no such fear. And prove to me nutjobs with guns have cut down on crime.

      • Jess James

        criminals don’t worry about registrations and laws. Cars are registered to create a revenue stream.

      • You do not have a constitutional right to a car, or, even considering the time period when the constitution was written, you were not granted constitutional rights to own a horse, or buggy for that matter. But…you were granted the right to own and carry arms.

        I know a lot of people who own guns but I don’t personally know any nutjobs with guns. I have heard of a few liberal democrat nutjobs that used guns to kill people (see hyatt111’s reply above for reference.)

      • And you are parroting everything that liberal politicians want you to believe. Do you know for a fact that straw purchases are taking place as the media claims? Do you know that no background checks take place at gun shows as liberals claim? I happen to know for a fact that purchases made at gun shows must be done in accordance to federal guidelines. Hitler took guns away from all citizens in the end, as does anyone that seeks to implement tyranny upon their people. In the beginning they always go after the people that the general public views as being threats, then everyone becomes a threat. Tis the way of totalitarianism. We are seeing the very start of it in our country today. In the beginning of every single regime take over the people were always led to believe it was for the better good.

      • If you people spent as much time studying actual educational material, as you do studying Hitler’s Germany, you might be intelligent enough to pass one of these scary background checks you’re so afraid of.

      • hiatt111

        Matt your posts crack me up! Keep em coming 🙂

      • You do realize the majority of US people have passed background checks. The ones who did not pass, buy guns off the street and use them to commit crimes.

        Which group would you like to take guns away from?

      • I’d like to take illegal-to-own guns away from anyone who is not properly, legally trained in their responsible use.

        More than that, though, I’d like to take guns of any kind away from anyone who has a history of mental illness, assault, etc.

        If you figure out a way to “take guns away” from criminals, let the rest of us know.

      • Jess James

        1% of firearms at show are done as private sales. The law still applies.

    • Please keep posting Angela. This way everyone can see you are as smart as a house plant.

      • John Buchanan

        Marc, I’m scouring the web for “snappy” come backs. Mind if I use this one? “Smart as a house plant” Good Stuff!.

      • No Sir, I don’t mind.

    • You really have no clue. The safest areas of the country are places without gun control. That is proven fact, you are too afraid to actually research the numbers and see for yourself aren’t you?

      But, that aside, it’s not about being ‘safe’, it’s about one thing: Protecting ones rights. You lose second amendment rights, you will lose first amendment, fourth amendment and fifth amendment rights along with it.
      You be careful what you wish for…The simple fact is the liberal government socialists do want to remove your first amendment. They won’t stop until it’s gone.

  • Conservative ideas have been scientifically linked to lower IQs. Unfortunately, conservatives don’t believe in science… Nor IQs… So, kinda puts us all at an impasse.

    • Wow, you sound just like Democrat government officials from the earlier part of the 20th century as they tried to link being black as having the very same attributes that you linked Conservatives to. Hmmmm, how wrong liberals were about them too.

  • hiatt111

    This is the same kind of bogus crap, they fed the Australians. Look now, they had all of their guns taken away and their violent crime rate skyrocketed. A ban on high capacity magazines? Really? It takes less than 2 seconds to load an additional magazine. Which one of these proposed control laws would have prevented ANY of the shootings you claim to be spokesmen for? NONE…so enough of your holier than thou BS. Not one of you gun control idiots has any idea what you are talking about. You simply jump on the liberal band wagon and blindly ride. Please stick to hugging trees and killing babies. Things you know more about.

    • Do you know what you’re talking about

      • IFC_Buzzkill

        Looks to me like he does. Do you?

      • It would appear as if he does, and there is factual data to back his assessment.

    • Again… you contend that it takes only seconds to reload a gun with an “additional magazine”… yet you claim you NEED a high-capacity mag. How in the hell does that make sense?

      • Guest

        we already have high cap. mags. so why ban them??????? Makes since to me.

      • hiatt111

        Again,,,, how the does it make sense to ban something just to be banning it? My point makes perfect sense. Banning high cap mags does not!!!

      • I don’t think they should tell people: “Okay, turn them in, they’ve been banned.” I don’t think they should start knocking on doors and demanding that people hand over their high-capacity magazines – unless the person who owns them has some sort of really disturbing history.

        I just think that they should ban people from buying them without going through the same type of red tape and paperwork it takes to buy a suppressor or silencer. If you couldn’t just pick up a Cabela’s or a ‘Cheaper Than Dirt’ and buy a hundred round drum for your AR, it might make the world a little safer – and if it didn’t, and you wanted one bad enough – you could always prove you weren’t crazy by submitting to a background check.

    • Same thing happened in old Mexico.They took all the citizens guns in 2005.They slaughter 60 to 70 thousand people since. We have gangs here now.

  • Ziggy

    I can’t really believe the majority of the NRA membership are in agreement with their over- the- top leadership. I hope they can come together and vote out these nuts and bring respectability back the the group. So many sportsmen and gun enthusiasts should not be putting up with this crap. They give the entire group a really bad rep.

  • hiatt111

    Are you insane? What “right-wingers” are you
    referring to?

    James Holmes (Aurora CO/Theater)- registered Democrat,
    volunteering for the Obama campaign.

    Jared Loughner (Tuscon AZ/Giffords shooter)-
    Anarchist/Atheist, think “Occupy Wall Street” and “Bill

    Nidal Hasan (Ft Hood Massacre), registered Democrat/Muslim

    Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook Massacre), registered Democrat

    Christopher Dorner (California killer on the run),
    registered Democrat, anti-NRA, Obama supporter.

    Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech) – Registered Democrat. Wrote
    hate mail to President Bush.

    Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine) – Both products
    of registered Democrats; progressive liberals

    James Chester Blanning (planted bombs) – registered

    John Patrick Bedell (Pentagon shooter) – registered

    Joseph Stack (crashed airplane into IRS building) –
    registered Democrat tmk

    The Unabomber – Democrat/Liberal agenda; climate/earth

    John Allen Muhammad (Freeway Sniper/D.C. area) – Democrat

    Then there’s violence, destruction & even murder with
    Democrat-supporting groups such as:

    New Black Panthers (campaigns to kill whites)

    ELF (Earth Liberation Front)

    Unions (various)

    Occupy (bomb plot,destruction,rapes,murder)

    ALF (Animal Liberation Front)

    PETA (extremists, violent protests)

    Code Pink (extremists, violent protests)

    Timothy McVeigh may have been a registered Republican but
    his actions & statements of “Science is God” suggests otherwise

    So tell us about all of these “right-wing” mass
    murderers in recent years.

    • It has nothing to do with what religion you are. It has nothing to do with what political party you are affiliated with. Insanity or mental illness does not care about your age, gender, race, affiliation, sexual preference, or geographic location. It affects millions of people without bias.

      Now if everyone would stop pointing the finger at each other, based on which political party they agree with, maybe we could stop some of the crazy people from killing civilians.

      Having said that, if you want to know why people aim their rhetoric concerning shootings at conservatives, instead of liberals – it is because conservatives are the ones who seem to want every citizen armed, regardless of their mental capacity for responsible gun use.

      • hiatt111

        I only wish it were that simple Matt.

      • Jess James

        If it were a group you didn’t agree with, you would be squealing terrorist.

      • If who were a “group I didn’t agree with”? The shooters? If anyone starts shooting people, based on any motivation such as political or religious belief, they are terrorists. No matter which side they’re on.

        If someone does it because they are mentally ill, they are simply a murderer. I don’t think they should be coddled, I think they should be imprisoned for the rest of their life, without hope of ever seeing the sun again.

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    Why are gun nuts so paranoid? They are afraid the government is coming to get them or there are marauding bands of thugs pounding on their doors, coming to rape their women and steal their things. Living like that has to be really pathetic.

    • liberalssuck

      It shows you do not get it. you never will until something happens, I only hope it never does..

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        It’s been 60 years and nothing has happened. I doubt it will happen, unlike you who think the government is out to get them.

  • Since there’s a confiscation bill in Cali state senate right now, it was part of the original SAFE act in NY, is the stated goal of Feinstein, Brady, and Bloomberg, I must respectfully call you a liar.

    The proposed ban this year required much more strict definitions of assault weapons — and was NOT the same as the 1994 Clinton ban. Once again, you are a liar.

    The Feinstein ban called for registration and freeze of transfer of existing owned guns — also not a part of the original AWB. Again, liar.

    No sir. Not another incremental inch. We aren’t giving ground. We aren’t giving up standard capacity mags and we aren’t allowing you to make a list of what we have to facilitate the collection of said items at your next incremental common sense’ infringement on our rights.

    No sir. You can take this respectful decline, or your ilk can push this to a head, the outcome of which won’t be good for anyone. You had your vote. Let it go and lose gracefully.

  • BeeKaaay

    Leftwingwackos believe that human rights are only for the chosen, and not for all.

    That’s why they seek to take away one’s right to self-defense. They believe that only politicians, cops, military and criminals should have guns. I’ve seen this movie before, it is called Schindler’s list.

    • You want some self defense capability that can’t be taken from you? Stop relying on a gun, that may misfire, may run out of ammunition, may become jammed, may become lost, may become damaged, may be confiscated – and learn to defend yourself with your own body. That way, when someone pulls out a boxcutter on your flight, you won’t have to sit there thinking – too bad I couldn’t carry my gun on the plane – now I’m at the mercy of these terrorists.

      • BeeKaaay

        I intend to do so. However, my point still stands unchallenged.

      • Your “point” was what? That liberals want the only armed individuals to be police, military, or criminals? We don’t want criminals to be armed, any more than you do – but as soon as you figure out a way to disarm all the criminals, you let me know.

        As far as not wanting civilians to be armed – I can’t speak for all liberals, but as an owner of multiple firearms, myself, I’m not in any way advocating the seizure of all firearms from responsible individuals.

        I only want it to be more difficult for anyone with a few hundred dollars to walk into a store and buy a gun, purposes unknown. I don’t expect someone to say “Hey, can I buy a gun to go and shoot some people with?” But I do expect an in-debth background check that might identify some red flags, giving some indication of their possible intentions.

      • BeeKaaay

        I don’t call them “liberals” – they are not for freedom, they are for more government power. I call them leftwingwackos, leftists, Marxists or regressives.

        Yeah, there is a way to disarm all the criminals. How about actually enforcing the EXISTING gun laws on the books against the criminals? Instead of creating new laws which will ONLY hurt the law abiding – then again leftwingwackos love to hurt the law abiding.

        And you are acting as if background checks are not done. They ARE done. Current federal law requires a background check for criminal, mental, terrorist watch list, and other disqualifying stuff.

        If someone is law abiding, sane and not otherwise disqualified, WHY do you want to make it more difficult for them to get a gun? Stop supporting legislation to hurt the rest of civilized people here.

      • BeeKaaay

        Then stop supporting things that put burdens on the law abiding and actually call for enforcement of existing laws.

        “I only want it to be more difficult for anyone with a few hundred dollars to walk into a store and buy a gun, purposes unknown.”

        If they pass the background check, then who cares WHY they’re buying a gun. You know they’re not going to do anything illegal with it. It is none of your business and none of mine.

        Stop treating ordinary law abiding people like criminals simply because they want to exercise a constitutional right.

      • liberalssuck

        Bawhaaaa spoken like a true libtard. Actually been examples of over 2 million folks saved in a year by firearms. We the people have stopped several terrorist from taking over or blowing up a couple of planes. Ah yes facts again. I will no be called names, roflmao!!

  • no side

    I just read all of these comments…congratulations you all are candidates for congress…left vs right liberal vs conservative history lesson vs common sense…

    • And he who stands in the middle gets run over and dies.

    • liberalssuck

      Lead , follow, or get the fuck out of the way.

  • Pro Se

    “…very same…”
    Not accurate. The recent bill was broader in several material respects.

  • Mark

    You sir, with all due respect, are a complete idiot. You are promoting the micro-erosion of our civil liberties and the Constitution itself!!! In your article you said,”Sorry sport shooters, I can’t support high-capacity magazines simply for sport shooting. Ranges can be allowed to own these for sport purposes, but they shouldn’t be privately owned”. “I can’t support high-capacity magazines”? It’s not a matter of what YOU support. The Constitution is already ratified and is the law of the land. You think you should be able to twist it around, alter it and mangle it to your individual liking? “Ranges can be ALLOWED”!?!? Who’s allowing? I guess the Government, whom your empowering to hold all of us LAW ABIDING CITIZENS under another set of freedom robbing rules and regulations that ultimately are the eroding elements of what little bit of freedoms we have left. How bout the bombing in Boston? Isn’t there some sort of ban or law against bombs? How’s that ban working out for you? Here’s my point, you want to make all these laws and bans that actually lean the playing field toward the criminal element and weaken the vast majority of the law abiding citizenry on multiple fronts. I’m a free human being on this planet and I’m not free because the Constitution says so. If I want a high capacity magazine, for whatever reason, that’s my right as a free person, PERIOD!!! It’s a matter of what “I” want to have so that “I” feel safe, it has absolutely nothing to do with what “YOU” will support. Don’t you think there’s enough government rules and regulations that DICTATE practically every aspect of your life? Every time something bad happens another rule is made in the name of national security, safety or money. Obviously, with this trend we can conclude that over time there won’t be any freedoms left. It’s happened before, can you not see that? And most importantly, IT DIDN’T HAPPEN OVER NIGHT!!! Think about it, or better yet do some research on Nazi Germany. Oh, I know, this is modern times it’s impossible for that to happen again, right?

    • When the Constitution was drafted, they had no reasonable means of making laws that would apply forever. There were no high-capacity magazines in that era. There were no fully-automatic assault rifles. It is for reasons such as these (and by no means only these) that the Constitution is able to be amended as necessary. We can’t make laws right now that say it is unlawful to use the electricity occurring naturally in your body as a weapon… and yet in hundreds of years, this may be something that, through science and evolution, becomes an issue.

      If that sounds far-fetched to you, consider how far science and technology have come, just in the past hundred years… and then compare that to how far-fetched your “Nazi Germany” scenario is.

      • Chuck

        So why are freedoms extended to Iphones, Ipads, Emails, text messages and such? So whats good for the goose isn’t good for the gander?

      • They always want every other right — Even UNWRITTEN rights such as health care, abortion, et al, to be absolute and inviolate, yet when it comes to the 2a it’s supposed to be frozen in the tech and context of 200 years ago.

        The hyprocrisy is astounding.

      • Where is the hypocrisy in wanting the laws to change in accordance to the wishes of the majority of law-abiding citizens of this country? As we become more educated, more civilized, more scientifically advanced as a nation, so too, should the laws by which we’re governed evolve.

        Some laws should be made more strict, some should be made more lax. Prohibition was unpopular – it eventually fell by the wayside. People got tired of breathing in second-hand smoke while trying to enjoy dinner – non-smoking laws were passed.

        Some give and take is necessary, and is the price we all pay for living in this country. It would be nice to see more people take such a rabid stance against something like the rich holding hostage the institution of higher education in this country, by making it unaffordable to the lower class – instead of becoming so vitriolic about an inanimate object meant for harming your fellow human beings.

      • No vitriol or spin in your opinion? Puhleeze.If a 51% majority wanted gays to be illegal or a permit for free speech, you’d come unglued.

        Hypocrites rarely can see their own lunacy.

      • When something comes down to a fifty-one to forty-nine percent vote, it’s clearly something that has merit in being debated.

        This issue is nowhere near those numbers. This is a 90-10 split. If I lived in a country where ninety percent of the population not only thought something I believed to be right was wrong – and then were able to vote it into law, disenfranchising me in some way – I would put my money where my mouth is and move elsewhere.

        But you don’t have to worry about that, because 45% of congress was able to derail the wishes of 90% of Americans – only in the “land of the free”.

      • Which freedom would that be? The freedom from having people intercept and read your personal correspondence? That freedom has evolved along with the US postal service – mail fraud or the unlawful tampering-with of US mail – is a federal offense – has been for years.

        How does the speed or efficiencty with which we communicate change the basic law of “don’t read my private correspondence”?

        The instantaneous text message, the private e-mail, the telephone conversation – none of these are able to do more harm by the speed with which they are able to occur.

        Even in some “summer blockbuster” scenario, where something bad could have been avoided, had it not been for such speedy relaying of messages, thanks to modern technology… correspondence far predates firearms, and its primary function is not the destruction of human beings.

        The laws have not needed much change in that regard, because no one is being harmed by faster or more “digital” communication. People are being hurt by weapons that should not be in the hands of just any civilian who can afford to purchase them, without having passed some sort of screening.

      • chuck

        Its really simple….. The digital communication was not around at the time of the constitution, but yet is has evolved to cover these new forms of speech and info. Now people scream that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of muskets and should only cover them? The second should also grow to cover the new forms of weapons. Its only fair 🙂

  • RDW

    Eat shit you fat fuck. I hope you lose a foot to diabetes.

    • hiatt111

      dont hurt people with guns, but wish bad things to happen to them……typical liberal…hug a tree, kill a baby.

  • So, no one wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens? No one? Not one single politician? Well, let me give you some examples of those that refute this claim:

    Waiting periods are only a step.
    Registration is only a step.
    The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.
    Janet Reno

    My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine
    why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for
    sport would be registered, and all other guns would be
    Deborah Prothrow-Stith

    If I could have banned them all…I would have!
    Diane Feinstein

    We’re bending the law as far as we can
    to ban an entirely new class of guns.
    Rahm Emmanuel

    We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless
    legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into
    Charles Schumer

    “If it were up to me, We’d ban them all.”
    – Rep. Mel Reynolds

    “We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should
    bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.”
    – Rep. William Clay

    a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a
    modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister
    democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and
    individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come
    – Charles Krauthammer

    “The Union agrees with
    the Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment
    that the individual’s right to keep and bear arms applies only to the
    preservation or efficiency of a ‘well-regulated militia’. Except for
    lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by
    individuals is not constitutionally protected.”
    – ACLU policy statement #47

    I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move
    expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than the police
    and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers … no one
    should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”
    – Dean Morris, Director, LEAA.

    So I guess these people are nobody’s? Gun control has never been about public safety. It has always been about public control. Those believing in this misguided ideology merely open themselves up to following a logic that removes liberty and our ability to protect ourselves. If you believe that the police and military should be the only ones to have guns, you have fallen for another misguided ideology that power seeking politicians want you to believe.

    According to every court in this land, including the Supreme Court, it is not the responsibility of the police to protect individual citizens unless that department has agreed to do so (high profile cases needing protective custody or when verifiable threats have been made to an individual and the department agrees to protection). Each court has cited that the 2nd Amendment gives EVERY citizen the right to carry a gun for protection. In many states, counties and cities legislation has been passed making it illegal for people to sue a police department if injury, death or loss of property result in the police either failing to show up for a call or show up late citing that it is the individuals responsibility to protect themselves, their families or their property once again stating that the 2nd Amendment gives EVERYONE that right. If you choose not to own a gun, that is your right but it is not your right to tell anyone else that they cannot own a certain type of weapon that they choose to own.

    The Efficiency of Militia Act is a federal law that cannot be repealed nor amended. It states that any legislation restricting, regulating or requiring the registration of guns is illegal. It states that every citizen is legally able to purchase as many guns of ANY TYPE that they can afford. According to this law, every citizen comprises the militia and they are to bring their own weapons. Yet people continue to blame the acts of a very few and make criminals out of those that view the 2nd Amendment as being necessary by enacting so called common sense laws that do absolutely nothing to prevent crime and merely make everyone into a potential criminal.

    Recently the head of DHS, Napolitano, stated that none of these gun restrictions will work without complete and total confiscation. So again, who are they that are not trying to take away guns from law abiding citizens?

    • And by the way, this is not about the NRA, this is about the Constitution. For those of you that believe that military STYLED weapons were not something that the 2nd Amendment nor our forefathers had in mind, then how does the 1st Amendment apply to cell phones, TV, the internet, or any of our current technology in the area of social media? This document is what gives us our rights in this nation and what keeps the government from imposing their rule upon us. What protects those rights are not laws. It is the 2nd Amendment that protects our rights. If it falls, so do the rest.

  • Guest

    Wow, this dude really is a moron. Ok I will address hsi point of background checks. One if you walk into any walmart, and gun shop and in all gun shows you ahve to complete a 1473 which is the background check. Sohe ahs no clue again of what he speaks. To Mary, yes we know liberals are clinicaly in sane.

    • coffeepotdome

      in what state is this “1473”?

      • 4473, every state.

      • coffeepotdome

        That is only for FFL dealers which does not cover the gun show I went to in Louisiana, or private sales in many states.

      • Private sales should NEVER be subject to a 4473. That’s what we just went through defeating in the Senate.

      • A 4473 on all private transfers is a de facto registration. Historically, there has never been a
        registration in any country, ever, that wasn’t used for confiscation.

        That’s a non-starter for any true 2nd Amendment proponent. Also completely illegal per the FOPA of 1986.

      • liberalssuck

        I call bullshit. outside our gun shows gives the statue you violate if you do not run a 4473! it does not cover private but here you can not even do a private sale at a gun show. It should never either. now what background would have Stopped Columbine, Sandy Hook, or others?

      • liberalssuck

        Ah my bad I missed a number, but yea required federally!!

  • liberalssuck

    Wow, this dude really is a moron. Ok I will address hsi point of background checks. One if you walk into any walmart, and gun shop and in all gun shows you have to complete a 1473 which is the background check. So he has no clue again of what he speaks. To Mary, yes we know liberals are clinicaly in sane.

  • liberalssuck

    So again lets rehash some current events, A left wing nut goes off and kills several folks, and it is every law abiding gun owners fault. A terrorist, yes I said it, A terrorist blows up 3 and wounds 170 and yet we must not judge the actions of the few !! Following so far. Good Now most of the killings, mass, have been committed by left leaning folks, yet we conservatives are the issue. So far you all fit the clinical definition of insane.

  • I say…Lets restrict the 1st amendment to ten words or less to get your point across…what do you need more words for….Words provoke people to kill…!!!!

    • liberalssuck

      Sad part, is they are starting to limit the 1st. Say something bad about islam!!

    • The 1st Amendment isn’t unregulated either you realize? Hate speech is not covered by the 1st Amendment, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater and claim it’s your right to free speech to cause panic and lie. There are limitis to both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. IDK why that’s so hard to understand.

  • rickv321

    So what you’re saying is we don’t need more than 10 rounds to protect ourselves? So if you get cancer you don’t need more than one chemo treatment? Chemo treatments offend me and how many people have died from them? You are a stupid person who has bought into the lie that Obama does not want to take my guns away from me, Go ahead and do whatever it is that they want, but when they decide that your 1st amendment goes too far and you are silenced don’t fucking cry to us asking us to get those rights back for you.
    You people that think like Obama and the stupid ass that wrote this little cry baby statement really think it will stop with regulating how many rounds of ammo I put in my weapons? No it will stop when you have to get special permission to travel across the state to visit family or friends, and when big government, (socialist), says that you don’t need to fly across country to see your family at christmas, (if there is even one left), what ya going to do then?
    Each and every one of you bleeding heart liberals need a history lesson in communism and how it comes to power, do you idiots believe that one day Russia woke up and said “hey, why don’t we become a socialist/communist country”.
    Man I have seen and dealt with some stupid fucks in my life but, you sons of bitches take the cake.

    • In what universe are weapons and medicine related? Chemotheraphy has nothing to do with owning and using a gun. Don’t derail the conversation about common sense gun regulation with bad metephors please. Let’s stay on topic.


    I’ve read most of the comments here & I noticed one thing: The folks with whom the Liberals disagree (according to Liberals) are “mentally ill psychopaths, lunatics, insane, stupid” and many more insulting things.

    According to Conservatives (read NRA) the Liberals are socialists Left-Wingers.

    The Liberals continue to call for common sense regulation & intelligent debate, but can’t argue their point without resorting to childish name calling.

  • Today Eric Holder said that the feds will enforce any gun confiscation reguardless what of any state law.They have been taking guns for the last two weeks in Ca. and N.Y.Look it up.

  • Well here’s the thing. (1) Obama isn’t an American eligible to hold the office. If he was he wouldn’t be spending so much time, and our money to hide his records. (2) The constitution is the permit for me to own guns, ammo, and clips. These rights shall not be infringed upon. (3) even a Kool aid drinker like you should realize it isn’t about guns, it’s about control. (4) If you are really concerned about guns you should be concerned about the weapons and ammo being purchased by the DHS.

  • Here’s my idea of the difference between the left and the right:

    Left: if you don’t want a gun, you want laws made so no one can own a gun.

    Right: If I don’t want a gun, I don’t buy one.

  • I could not agree more. Too bad there are so many morons like this Porter fella, who only know what they hear from Faux “News” and “read” in their NRA member magazine or something. Oh, and Rush Limbaugh and his brothers-in-arms.

    And try giving them facts? They put their fingers in their ears, and shut their eyes.

    • John Gavel

      Or i just look in my gun safe and realize my “assault” rifles arent assaulting anyone- they are just hanging out

      • Yep, well, I have nothing against responsible gun owners. I just don’t like the way the NRA killed the background check bill, which was already watered down quite a bit. And I don’t care for secessionist grunters, whom I hardly understand for their grunting every word out so they sound the same. E.g. Joe Barton.

        But just to check: are your guns in the safe, or hanging out? 😉

      • liberalssuck

        Again what law would have changed sandy hook or any other killing? we all ready have back ground checks in gun shows and ffl.

    • liberalssuck

      We give you all facts all the time, it usually ends up with you calling us names!!

  • Dex

    “Limit magazines and ban semi-automatic rifles”, and “sensible”, are mutually exclusive.

  • Thank you for rightly pointing out that ALL conservatives hold identical beliefs on this issue.

  • How about Moderates? We believe all sane, law abiding citizens should be able to own any type presently, and any size magazine. As we are sane and law abiding, we fully support Universal background checks for any and all firearms purchases, and stringent repercussions for those who do not abide by the law. We do not believe that a National Registry is in keeping with the preservation of our rights, but see no inclination of the government to establish such a registry.

    • liberalssuck

      We already have a crap load of gun laws on the book. You have seen some of the remarks made by Biden right, about enforcing laws already on the books. This admin a joke on the American people.

  • Dont like them, don’t own them. Dont want me to own one. Then amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Plain and simple. If you anti gunners truly have the support you say you have then it should be a simple task to get congress to vote the way you feel. After all congressmen only vote the way their constituents tell them too. If the majority in their disctrict say one thing, they vote that way because they want to get reelected.

  • publius

    Clearly we can no longer get along and really just need to split, red states and blue states. Best of luck blue folks, we don’t want to hear from you again after the split. Seriously, let’s do it.

  • The Kid

    Allen Clifton = Sore Loser! lol

  • Gathered in the bazaar?

    Barbarians arrived today.

    Why omissions in the Senate?

    Why do not legislate Senator?

    As barbarians coming today.

    What are the legal and Senator?

    When their legislation Barbarian


    Share ›

  • A link with proof of the absolute lies that this progressive fool is telling; Here we have lawmakers caught on tape saying they want confiscation.

    YES, THEY DO WANT TO TAKE THE GUNS. It’s their stated end game.

    Enough of the misdirection and lies, we’re not falling for it.

  • jack

    Ok aaaand here in some of your statements is why gun owning people fear and despise you. You treat them as naughty children or mentally deranged. I am a gun user I supported the brady bill I don’t think anyone needs an assault rifle for home defense. But the way YOU yes YOU people act so superior and talk like you are morally better and that YOU know best of course they think you are going to infringe on their constitutional right, you just point fingers and go I know better than you. Instead of approaching them and asking them what a reasonable solution would be. Shame on you as well.

    • liberalssuck

      We do not have assault rifles, they are already regulated under the 1934 firearms act. You or anyone else does not have the right to tell me or mine what I should use to defend myself or my family!!

  • DonRitchie

    Speak for yourself dude. I wanna take away all their guns. Anyone who thinks they need a gun in today’s world shouldn’t have one

    • liberalssuck

      Yes and what about those 2 million folks who’s life are saved by firearms a year. I guess they do not matter to an elite such as yourself. the sad part is you live in a dream world, in reality there are folks who break laws for a living. It is what they do!

      • The number is more like 300 non-cop justified homicides a year and every one of these people would have probably been safer if their attacker didn’t have a gun.

        The rest of the entire civilized world that bans guns proves you completely wrong.

        If so-called scofflaws are so incurably criminal, then all access to guns should be removed completely because we can’t fix criminals.

      • liberalssuck

        You are wrong. the stats from the fbi does not break it down into justifiable, suicides or other deaths. Now another study showed close to 1.8 million lives saved by firearms. Some never shot anyone just had to show the firearm.
        Again you seem to be missing a point. Criminals will never give up there guns and if they are removed from law-abiding then the criminals will have it all. I am not for that. You do not get to make that choice for me or others. Uk leads us in violent crime. Also they banned all handguns and yet gun crime has risen. In every country that has banned firearms crime is rampant. Altho it sounds like you have protection others do not. A fun fact for you sir is, gun ownership has been climbing and overall crime is decreasing. So again your opinion is wrong. I am sorry that bothers you but that is fact.

    • Grits.N.Jowls

      Fine, come and try to take it; I’ll give you the bullets first.

  • username993569 .

    What strange laws you people have, that you think you’re entitled to have a device that kills people in your house. Take them away.

    • liberalssuck

      I am sorry you have no right to tell me I can not use a device of my choice to defend myself in my home. Stay socialist friend!!

    • Grits.N.Jowls

      It’s a civil right not a law.

  • Mark Bergen

    Hey A$$hole, you have to produce an ID to legally purchase a firearm.
    “Enough! Nobody wants to take away your damn vote!”
    And if you’re a conservative, looks like you’ve been getting IRS and NSA background checks for organizing to vote.
    Or if you’re with the Justice “Just Us” Department, then you can get them under the “Fast and Furious” option

    But then again, criminals get weapons without showing ID.


    Also “Wondering” …
    Since this “Just Us” Justice Department wants to sue Texas and others states re: voter ID laws DESPITE being upheld by the Supreme Court, can we put states and precincts with a history of inflated turnout/ dead voter roles/ absentee ballot/ voter fraud under Federal supervision, too, or do we only need state voter and gun registration oversight and background checks against “these” kind of Americans?

  • Paul T Bennethum

    Private citizens do not need military assault weapons. They only want them as some sort of twisted status symbol so they can feel like they are. in the military most of them would never have the self-discipline to succeed in to begin with. Red Dawn was just a movie, folks and the sandworms from Tremors are not real either.

    • liberalssuck

      We do not have military assault weapons, that is again a made up term by the left. We own semi automatic rifles, not select fire military weapons. I believe we should as I contend that is what the founders meant. To have the same arms as the military and I am talking about small arms in reference “to bear”.

  • iarnuocon

    How is the “you don’t need…” line of rhetoric any different from the argument that your shouldn’t fear unreasonable search and seizure unless you’re guilty of something? While I appreciate the author’s careful construction of a straw-man, the 2nd Amendment isn’t exactly vague about its restriction on the authority of the government to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. There’s no “need” test involved in it.

    So… straw men, equivocation, ad hominems, the panoply of rhetorical devices deployed in this propaganda masquerading as journalism still doesn’t present a good argument for arbitrary limits on magazine capacity or arbitrary restrictions on scary black-plastic rifles.

    And as a liberal who owns guns and respects the Second Amendment, I can’t really credit that you aren’t aware of the good arguments against the truly bad portions of the proposals put forward by liberals on this issue. That’s not to say that efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unbalanced aren’t well-meaning, but ignorance of the potentially infringing consequences of the “do anything it takes” mentality is no excuse.

    Clifton ought to do a better job of making an argument than name-calling and bullshit. That he doesn’t makes me wonder whether the reason is because he doesn’t really HAVE a good argument.

    • liberalssuck

      You sir are spot on!

  • Dennis Wheeler

    I am a gun owner. I have been since I was a teenager. That doesn´t prevent me from recognizing that fully automatic military hardware doesn´t belong in the hands of civilians. That there is no justifiable reason for high volume clips in light of the recent problems we´ve had. No we should not be able to own ICBM with warheads. There is no common sense just political opposition.

    • liberalssuck

      Yet no study has said any of this works which you are suggesting. I do not care what you think as you do not have the right to dictate what I may use for my defense. No where does it say anything about nukes, that is a typical straw man argument. The words to bear arms mean which you can carry. You may think we have back pack nukes but we do not. Again you really think criminals follow the law. pretty piss poor thinking there. Must be the liberal in you..

  • Paul T Bennethum

    The Founding Fathers had alot of common sense. Back in their time the guns regular people owned were flintlocks. I don’t believe that they saw a future where firearms would develope to what they are now. I am sure that if they had that knowledge they would have enough foresight to want to limit civilians access with regards to firepower. Sadly, manufacturers and sellers have no such sense. Their only motive is profit and the cost in innocent lives means nothing to them. They market real weapons for children for crying out loud! I would rather have a less violent society rather than one where weapons are marketed to people no matter how suspect their ability to judge responsible ownership and use is.

  • becky

    I really don’t like how emphatic you are that people with mental illness can’t own firearms. Very few mental illnesses can cause a person to be a danger to themselves or others and only if they are untreated. People with these severe mental illness are almost always in treatment. Then you have mental illness like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder or Generalized Anxiety Disorder or even Disthemia which are all illness that pose no real danger in relation to fire arms. What you so emphatically believe about people with mental illness would make it illegal for a person who suffered from depression but is in treatment and is in complete remission to own a small handgun to protect themselves from home invaders et c. It’s really not cool. People with cancer can get guns. People with arthritis can get guns. People with psoriasis can get guns. but why can’t someone with an illness that functions exactly like all the aforementioned (an organ in the body malfunctions because of a virus, pathogen, infection, et c.) have the same rights?

    People with mental illness are people too. Stop being awful.

  • sambahat

    “If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period.” Something tells me we shouldn’t believe anything the Left says. Just sayin…

  • patriot

    Hey jackass the gun ban on assault weapons in the past was only for fully automatic weapons. Oh, and by the way Obummers regulation would include all semi automatic weapons since that is what an ar is! Dumbass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • patriot

    Why is that because the liberal democrats think that “assault weapons” should be banned then the rest of us are just idiots. I happen to enjoy shooting mine and have no intentions of using for mass murder. If you research it “assault weapons” do not even come close to amount of killings that have been done by other weapons. So why not ban all weapons, why pick on a certain weapon? I mean just because you think its the thing to do does that make it right?

  • Mick Price

    “thinks the Confederate states had the right to own slaves”

    Nope, thinking that the North was the aggressor doesn’t mean you think it’s OK to own slaves. The war wasn’t about slaves. In fact in his inaugeral address Lincoln not only said he wouldn’t stop slavery, he said he’d send slaves back to their masters.

    “(apparently Lincoln was a tyrant)”

    Ok, under what definition was he NOT a tyrant? Even assuming you approve of him and his policies, how is what he did not tyranny? Detention without trial for Newspaper editors and proprietors that didn’t tow the line. You no doubt called GWB a tyrant (correctly) because he sought to imprison a few whistleblowers who revealed classified information. Lincoln imprisoned thousands who didn’t reveal anything classified or that would have been classified if there had been such a system.

    “President Obama does not want to take away your damn guns”

    President Obama wants to take your LIFE if he thinks he needs to. And why? FYTW is the reason he wants to be able to give to you and the courts. So to say you know he won’t take people’s guns is absurd.

    “It’s the very same ban George W. Bush has been quoted as saying he felt should have been renewed in 2004. ”

    And the Greedy Weasel Bastard’s word counts for what exactly?

    “You don’t need more than 10 bullets to hunt or defend yourself ”

    How the HELL do you know? You are amazingly arrogant about a subject that could make the difference between life and death. You don’t know who I’m likely to be attacked by, when or in what lighting conditions, what drugs they might be on, whether they will be in a vehicle or behind cover, etc, ect. What is your basis for saying that if I can’t defend myself with 10 bullets I’m not skilled enough to use a gun? In short citation needed.

    “. Again, what imbecile opposes actions that seek to prevent mentally ill individuals from obtaining dangerous weapons?”

    The sort that know that most mentally ill aren’t violent, and that they are often the subject of violent assault. Because I’m depressed you want to remove my guns because, well because you saw a horror movie about crazy people or something.

    “, but I also support sensible regulations of that right ‘

    No you don’t, you support gradual destruction of that right step by step. None of these “sensible” restrictions have worked, and those who call for them know it. You never hear them say “We did this and it worked.” That’s because it’s never worked. And they know it.

  • Robb Nunya

    Umm… did the world end when the ban sunsetted? You aren’t very smart, are you? I’m surprised you could get this tripe published, even at THIS liberal rag.

  • FreedomIsn’tFree

    President Obama also said he supported a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. You don’t need more than 10 bullets to hunt or defend yourself—and if you do, you probably shouldn’t be operating any kind of firearms to begin with.

    Hunting is never mentioned in the second amendment as that isn’t it’s purpose. It’s purpose is for the people to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. You don’t need more than 10 bullets to defend yourself? And if you do you probably shouldn’t be operating any kind of firearm? Are you kidding, I guess that means the military shouldn’t have magazines exceeding more than 10 rounds because they are surely trained enough to not need more than that. Comments like yours just prove how naive people are to this entire situation.

  • Menotyou

    Holy shit, the man is just a patriot concerned for his country and the road its going down. But lets twist it all up like idiots. The guy who wrote this article further shows the stupidity of even writing about this.

  • Menotyou

    So glad, this article is literally nothing but the authors one way extreme opinion.

  • James

    So the point of your article is to just bash the side that you don’t agree with??? Is “birther” some sort of new derogatory statement meant to make anyone who’s actually taken the time to look into Obama’s birth certificate nothing but a crazy crackpot conspiracy theorist?? Because if that’s the case then count me in…. The reason the NRA is up in arms is because of the absolutely outlandish controls being forced upon gun owners in the United States. Not because they’re a bunch of crazy old racists who enjoy stories about children being murdered with high powered rifles….. The fact of the matter is this my friend… There’s a reason the right to bear arms is the second amendment and not the tenth. Because the framers of the constitution understood how important that right is!!! It’s the only way the people of this country would be able to stand up to an oppressive government that tries to infringe upon their UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!! Now you can call me whatever you’d like, I honestly could not care one bit! But if you honestly believe that these gun control laws are being swindled upon the American people in order to “save lives” then you my friend are just plain old stupid. Heart disease is the number one killer in the US and forgive me if I’m mistaken but I don’t see the government launching a campaign to close down fast food restaurants and impose healty eating laws on the American people. I mean if they really cared about saving lives don’t you think a war on heart disease would be be a much better place to start??? Understand that there’s a reason they are trying to eithier take your high powered rifles or force you to register them. It’s not because they want to keep you safe, it’s because they don’t want people to be able to resist what’s coming. I’m not going to explain to you what that is, you’re going to have to search for yourself. Handguns kill more people than high powered rifles but they aren’t trying to ban those…. Because a handgun doesn’t pose the kind of threat that an AR15 can. Don’t listen to me though. I’m crazy.

  • Rob

    “We’re just being reasonable, they’re just LITTLE laws. So reasonable, so little, so common sense.” Are you still trying to sell that LIE? Stop with the propaganda. It doesn’t work.

    “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” – Barack 0bama

    “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of firearms is the goal.” – Janet Reno, December 10, 1993

    “No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.” – Washington Post, September 15, 1994

    “There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . . Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.” – Communitarian Network’s The Case for Domestic Disarmament, signed by Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke

    “The second article of amendment (Second Amendment) to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.” (U.S. House Joint Resolution 438 introduced 11 March 1992 by Congressman Owens, D-NY)
    “Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind.” – Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

    “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.” – Sen. Dianne Feinstein (60 Minutes episode, CBS) [Sen Feinstein holds a CCP]

    “I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” – Sen. John Chafee (R.-R.I.), In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

    “If it were up to me we’d ban them all [firearms].” – Congressman Mel Reynolds (CNN Crossfire 9 Dec 93)
    “I hit the lotto!” — Rep. Mel Reynolds, upon learning that his underage girlfriend was bringing over her Catholic-Schoolgirl friend for a threesome.

    “We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. . . . We’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.” – Nelson T. (Pete) Shields III (Founder, Handgun Control, Inc./National Council to Control Handguns) (New Yorker Magazine, p.57-58, 26 Jul 76)

    “There is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the service in a well regulated militia.” – Sarah Brady (Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc.) (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 6 June 97, pg. 6)

    “To end the crisis [gun violence], we have to regulate- or, in the case of handguns and assault weapons, completely ban- the product…. We are far past the where registration, licensing, safety training, background checks, or waiting periods will have much effect on firearms violence.” – Josh Sugarmann (Executive Director, Violence Policy Center; former Communications Director of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns) Mother Jones Magazine, Jan/Feb 94, article titled “Reverse Fire”

    “The plain fact is that the United States is now hostage to a harrowing epidemic of gun violence, and the Brady bill won’t do much to change that. The National Rifle Association has been saying this all along, and the NRA is right….The NRA has also argued that a waiting period won’t prevent criminals from getting guns. And it’s right about that, too….Enactment of the Brady bill will, however, represent a victory of some political significance – a visible defeat for the tenacious lobbying power of the NRA….Thus the limited scope of the Brady bill was justified as a necessary first step toward breaking the NRA’s power – a way to demonstrate that politicians could support a moderate version of control and survive.” – William Greider (writer, Rolling Stone magazine) (Rolling Stone, article entitled: “A Pistol-whipped Nation – Pass the Brady Bill – then ban handguns”, 30 Sep 93, pg. 31)

    “We must reverse this psychology (of needing guns for home defense). We can do it by passing a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail- period!” – Carl Rowan (Washington, DC Syndicated Columnist 1981 article)
    Seven years later…..
    “…as long as authorities leave this society awash in drugs and guns, I will protect my family.” – Carl Rowan (1988 article titled “At Least They’re Not Writing My Obituary”, after shooting an unarmed trespasser with an unregistered handgun)

    “We are going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!” – Representative Chuck Shumer, 12/8/93

    “In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” – Charles Krauthammer (columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

    “We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,” – Rep. William L. Clay (D-St. Louis, Mo.) NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill, St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 8, 1993

    “I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have “woken up” – quote – to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not “household” weapons, is the first step.” – Stockton, CA Mayor Barbara Fass – ABC News Special, Peter Jennings Reporting: Guns, April 11, 1991

    “I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it’s an amendment. I know it’s in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law – and I know this is extreme – that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” – Shannon Hawkins, Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999, (quoting talk show hostess Rosie O’Donnell) (*In May 2000, her bodyguard applied for a concealed weapons permit. O’Donnell stated hypocritically that because of threats, she and her family need protection, which she attributes to her “tough gun-control rhetoric”.)

    “Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use.” – Rep. Bobby Rush, Chicago Tribune, 12/5/99

    “Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control. His on-the-record reply: ‘Guns are an abomination.’ Free from fear of gun owners’ retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles. – William Safire, LA Daily News, 6/15/99 (*Something to think about this election year…)

    “Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you’re gonna have. It’s pathetic. It really is pathetic. It’s sad. We’re living in the Dark Ages.” – Sylvester Stallone (*Ironic, isn’t it?)

  • mary hayman

    Simmer down

  • John

    Allen, you idiot, yes they do. Democrats in Congress have said they would take away every gun if they could. It’s recorded on tape.

  • Matthiu Ryin

    if no one is trying to take anyones guns then why do they keep telling you they arent trying to take anyones guns while constantly trying to ban certain guns while constantly talking about the dangers of guns and buyback programs and making it as illegal as possible and controlled as possible for the owning of and transportation of guns? in some states you need a permit to own a gun against the second amendment so yeah gun rights are infringed on wherever people allow them to be.. no ones trying to take the guns.. yeah the fuck right..

    • Matthiu Ryin

      if no one is trying to ban all guns they wouldnt constantly feel the need to tell you they arent trying to take your guns.. obviously they are tryign to take your guns if they are telling you they arent.. if they werent trying to take them they wouldnt be saying anything at all.. if they werent trying to take your guns then why do they launch the we arent trying to take your guns campaigns everywhere and write articles about how they arent trying to ban guns? what would be the point of doing that unless they are trying to lower your guard so they can then take your guns? its the oldest trick in the book.. im not going to steal from you… *steals from you… oh yeah im really that stupid.. you totally fooled me.. all you had to do was say the opposite of what you were going to do and i believed you because im stupid and then you got me.. dernit…