The Radical President Who Hated Our Second Amendment

How dare any president think they have the right to trample all over our Constitution?

It’s inexcusable for someone who’s elected by the people to believe that they are above our Constitution, the very fabric which built this great nation.

So, a shooting happened.  Is that really a reason for some knee-jerk emotional reaction which only punishes law-abiding citizens?  Gun regulations do nothing to deter criminals from committing these crimes because criminals don’t obey laws.  In fact these gun regulations wouldn’t have even prevented the shooting to begin with.

We cannot let people use fear to push through unconstitutional, pointless political agendas on gun regulations that only serve the purpose of taking away our guns and our right to defend against tyranny.

It’s why we should all be appalled that in 1991 the radical former President Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Reagan even wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that passionately praised the Brady bill, saying it would “stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.”

Then, in 1994, Reagan had the audacity (right before the passage of the assault weapons ban) to say, “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense.  But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

The radical former President Reagan even went after our rights as Americans to own certain types of ammo, saying, “Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

How dare he tell us Constitutional Americans how we can exercise our Second Amendment rights?

Who cares if well over one million felons have been denied the right to buy a gun because of the background checks required by the Brady Act?  The NRA (and true Constitutional Americans) know that these policies passed by the freedom-hating President Clinton, and supported by the radical former President Reagan, are unconstitutional!

Also, we shouldn’t forget that when President George W. Bush did nothing to repeal the Brady Act – a disgusting attack on our freedoms as Americans – he became part of the same radical attack on our Second Amendment as President Obama.

Hell, Bush actually took it a step further when he was quoted as saying that he felt the 2004 assault weapons ban should have been extended and continued.  Who the hell does this gun-hating radical think he is?

But wait, what else did I just discover?  The NRA’s CEO Wayne LaPierre once actually supported expanded background checks that included gun shows.

What the hell?  What’s becoming of this country with all of these gun-hating radical presidents like Reagan and Bush, and then even Wayne LaPierre supporting these attacks on our Second Amendment?

As we always do when these radicals attack our Second Amendment rights, we must rush out to buy every gun and bullet possible.  We must send the profits of the gun and bullet manufacturers soaring – because there’s absolutely no evidence that their financial backing of fearmongers in the media and on Capitol Hill has anything to do with increasing their profits.

It’s just all a giant coincidence.

Freedom! Liberty! The Constitution! America!

Now let’s go watch Rambo and get ready for our armed revolt.

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

  • Allen: I understand your arguments, but I have one catch: It is that there are two elements here: The weapon and so strong and inappropriate and the person. How stressed, unbalanced, diseased or abnormal can be, in national average, people who use or want to do in the near future.

    I think the temperament of the people is very important, and firepower of weapons of combat than any ordinary citizen can buy, is exes.

    The background would be an excellent help if it were also a brief but effective mandatory mental examination to those who request to purchase a firearm.

    The other is to admit that the Second Amendment applies in different contect she argued made 150 years.For example that merely mention the defenza person, sport, hunting and similars.That limit so that the sale and use weapons of war, because within the country there is not.

    That’s my humble opinion.

    • I strongly agree that there should be a mental/psych evaluation before gun purchases. Nothing too terrible but still enough to say if a person is mentally balanced enough to own a gun, especially a high powered one.

      Also, you’re very right… I do not believe that a citizen needs a high powered assault rifle for Any reason and that their purchase, transport, etc should be banned. That is a heavy duty weapon that needs to remain solely in the hands of professionals such as soliders and SWAT teams.

      • torr10

        you obviously know very little about weapons. There is no such thing as an ‘Assault Weapon’. Anything I assault you with is a weapon. A rifle with a 10 round magazine is a rifle with a 10 round magazine…no matter what it looks like. They come in the same calibers as any other rifle. That little 22 they sell at Walmart for $100 is just as deadly as the one the same company makes for $250 using the same caliber ammunition…even though it looks like an ‘assault weapon’. Why should one be banned?? Because it’s black?

      • Why are you complaining about something that could easily be defined? Is it unfathomable that someone could do a bit of research and write a clear, concise definition of what is an assault weapon. But I didn’t say “assault weapon”, I said “Assault Rifle” which is defined as :: A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

        So yes, if the weapon you’re referring to falls into that category it should also be banned or at Very least closely regulated and I don’t care if it’s pink and purple with butterflies stamped on it. It doesn’t matter how cheaply it can be purchased, it has a killing capacity that is unnecessary in the hands of the public. Do you hunt big game? Then you may have a permit and the weapon after you’ve gone through an appropriate screening that is recurring.

      • torr10

        Why am I complaining? Because again you have shown your ignorance on the subject, yet you think you know enough to make an informed decision. The weapons used at those schools were NOT automatic weapons. They were semi- automatic…..BIG difference. The weapons you want to ban are no more dangerous than any hunting rifle out there, they just look different. I bought a t-shirt at a gun show a couple of weeks ago that sums up the whole liberal agenda perfectly. It had a picture of an AR 15 on it and it was captioned….”It’s because I’m black, isn’t it?” You are prejudiced against a rifle that you don’t even know enough to talk about correctly simply because of the way it looks and its color. Thankfully, my people are beyond being prejudiced against something because of its color.

    • daifung

      There is one fundamental flaw with this approach; it assumes that a person’s mental health never changes. A whole variety of situations can lead to a mental break, and mental impairment can be identified at any point in a person’s life. We should be thinking about gun ownership and use more like we do automobile ownership and use. Drivers need to regularly get checked out.

    • I would worry seriously if any of my comments did not displease someone of visitors to this interesting site where ideas are debated and views.


    You should be ashamed of this article. REAGAN WAS A HERO for his balls to take action like that. So is any other President who does the same. It is not a failsafe idea, it has problems for sure, there is no guarantee but something needs to be done and that is a good step…AS FOR ‘WHO ARE YOU TO TELL…”…UHM THEY ARE ELECTED PRESIDENTS, THE GUYS IN CHARGE SO DEAL WITH IT. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO REWRITE YOUR DAMNED BILL OF RIGHTS, JUST KEEP GIVING THEM DEAD KIDS AS A REASON TO DO SO!!!


      AND FYI…if military weapons had been banned the Sandy Hook school shooting would have been different. So would many others in the US in particular. You all want guns, but less than 1% of you has enough brain cells to use them properly. But keep telling yourself it’s ok, just some kids died right? You piece of crap!!!

      • I’m pretty sure this is satire.

      • satire not so much as dripping with sarcasm….which is what its says making sense

      • S.

        ladies and gentlemen, the exact sort of knee jerk liberal response that the gun companies and gun nuts try to scare us about.

      • Unicorn Meat

        Do you even bother reading the responses people leave on your comments?

      • S.

        if i can find them again, yes. but it is hard some times when trolls get to the board and flood it with hate and rantings, pushing off all the legitimate discussion and commentary

      • there are only 9 comments on here so shouldnt be hard to find lol

      • S.

        well that isn’t the norm. usually the whole thing gets flooded with trolls and you can’t find your own foot among the carnage, much less a single paragraph comment.

      • torr10

        And banning the type of weapon used, which was NOT military style, from a law abiding citizen would have stopped a criminal how? Please, some whiney liberal answer that question….I’ve been asking it so long and never gotten a legitimate answer.

    • I think you missed the point, that was satire..

      The author is being sarcastic about present day NRA BS. The author is saying those were good moves by unlikely persons according to present day thinking

      • S.

        agreed. definitely satire. the whole point was to make fun of the NRA and all the 2nd Amendment junkies and to show how utterly ridiculous it is to hear these things coming out of the mouths of people who once were for the complete opposite.

      • You are right, Mr Haun. FEDUP did not get that the author was using satire and sarcasm to make a point. Also, FEDUPWITHGUNNUTS, neither the POTUS nor any other elected official has the right to change the constitution. You really should have paid more attention in government class.

    • Mr.Smith

      He is pointing out the hypocrisy not demeaning Mr. Reagan. Hero? You mean the same president responsible for Iran/contra? You know the smuggling of metric tons of cocaine sold to american kids and the invention of crack to make money to fund an illegal war resulting in the most massive increase of crime and drug addiction in our nations history? The word hero in regard to president Reagan is quite debatable.

      • torr10

        oh yeah…forgot all about that picture of RR in a Meth lab….

  • Jax

    Oh my gosh shut up already!! I am so tired I hearing these gun freaks whining about people trying to take their guns! SHUT UP!!!!!

    • I think you did not get the sarcasm.

    • torr10

      and I’m tired of seeing people abuse English….

    • torr10

      and if you’re tired of hearing about it…why did you click the link to read it….liberal idiot…

    • Reynard Vulpes

      Call yourself sir or madam. Attend to The Brady Campaign and Diane Feinstein and other legislators who have stated exactly that … there aim is to bar all citizens from having ANY guns and they admit they are starting with particular guns to get the ball rolling.

      Really, research it, if you’ve a mind to, or continue to whine about our indignation at their plan. Taking the guns has never worked out for anyone it’s been done to in any nation.

  • Am I right in thinking the first 4 words of the 2nd amendment are “A well regulated Militia”?

    Is that word “regulated” important?

    Being from the UK, I’m not entirely familiar with how one applies the constitution. Can you just ignore parts of it like that? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

    • Bobby Whittemore

      I have seen people argue that the word “regulated” meant something different than the obvious back then, or when used in this context. I can’t argue that point either way, but I agree with you, and I am American.

      • daifung

        “The distinction between a well-regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter.”

        -George Washington

    • AZComicGeek

      These are the same people who pick and chose verses from the bible to uphold their version of morality. If they don’t agree with it, it doesn’t exist.

      • dissenter

        Happens on both sides of the fence, truth be told.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Not really. We on the left don’t beat people over the head with the Bible or the Constitution.

      • dissenter

        What about immigration? It is next-to-impossible to get a lib to say “illegal.” You screech like banshees at the criminal acts of Republicans, but swallow the whistle in the immigration debate. You don’t seem to care that it drives wages down, creating structural unemployment and driving people into poverty.

        I want us to enforce our immigration AND war crimes law.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And you know WHY we have illegal immigrants? Because your GOP conservative business buddies LIKE being able to pay illegal immigrants a lot less money. Why do you think Bush’s attempt at immigration reform failed?

        Plus, illegal immigrants didn’t kill 4000 in a war based on lies.

      • torr10

        not 4000 on a war…but a lot more on the streets over drugs, guns, sex, colors…all those really important things….

      • torr10

        now that I think about it…I missed an incredibly STUPID thing you said. The REPUGS want to let the illegals in the country a lot more than the GOP does. Why do you think they have an ASS for a symbol?

      • Dude, are you smoking something? Maybe you could pass the bong? “The REPUGS want to let the illegals in the country a lot more than the GOP does.” Umm, the ‘repugs’ *are* the GOP. And uhh, “Why do you think they have an ASS for a symbol?” Last time I checked, the ‘repug’ (GOP) symbol was an elephant. *facepalms*

      • torr10

        So I got distracted and when I came back I typed the wrong thing. Obviously you understood what I was saying. Did the better part of your personality run down your daddy’s leg?

      • Montely Wilson

        People usually get distracted when being disingenuous. Creating your own facts takes hard work and lots of concentration. Not something you should off the cuff!

      • torr10

        You arrogant idiot. I got distracted because my wife fell and called for my help. I guess creating your own facts is hard work for you too. Not something you should do off the cuff….

      • Ter

        So…you were distracted by your wife calling for help and had to hurry up and finish typing first…no prob I understand.

      • torr10

        Wow you really are not capable of a normal thought process, are you? Of course I didn’t finish typing first. I helped her and then came back to finish.
        With your statements, you are making a very strong case against gun control. We need to be protected from people like you that can’t read and think for yourselves.

      • ThatDCGuy

        wow, this is awesome. Would you like to borrow a shovel? You seem to want to keep on digging.

      • Ereka

        Must be a Teapublican…..

      • Sean Jones

        Except for the fact that immigration is at a negative (thanks to the DEMOCRAT President). Yea thats right, more illegals are leaving compared to the amount coming in. So you are welcome now that that problem is being fixed. The better question is why the last President did jack shit about immigration.

      • torr10

        So not true.

      • Howard Sands

        Nope. Not even close.

      • well said.

    • Mr. Smith

      Regulated means regulations, in other words gun control laws. But they don’t get that part. They are def in one ear and cant hear in the other. I love guns, I’m an avid hunter, but never ever in my life did I need more then 2 bullets in my gun. And, I sure as heck don’t want crazy people or violent criminals to have access to firearms.

      • dissenter

        I’ve never shot one in my life, but you had a very different form of government before the Civil War Amendments. See Barron v. Baltimore. The States handled the regulation, and the feds had no say in what they did pursuant to the old 10Am.

      • daifung

        Actually, the phrase ‘well regulated militia’ has nothing to do with the modern term ‘regulation’.

        “The distinction between a well-regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter.”

        -George Washington

        The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with either gun control or the individual right to own guns. It simply set up a system of national defense in the absence of a standing army. Since we long ago abandoned the principle of citizen defense, the 2nd amendment is irrelevant. Sad that the nuts in the NRA aren’t intelligent enough to read what they say they want to protect.

      • torr10

        a militia is not an army.

      • Tell that to the “militias” that fought for and won the Revolutionary war. Those minutemen weren’t regular army.

      • torr10

        Exactly my point. They were not regular army. They were men and women defending their homes and families with the weapons that they owned and bought with their own money.

      • daifung

        No, they were not defending themselves with their own weapons, except for isolated cases and very early war activities. With the help of the French (and others) the colonies purchased and manufactured military muskets, bayonets, swords, cannon and ammunition, not to mention uniforms, provisions, wagons and all the other hardware needed by an 18th-century army. The soldiers were trained by a combination of existing experienced military leaders (many trained by the British earlier) as well as French experts.

        At the end of the war the remaining arms, from muskets to cannon, were gathered and stored in local/regional armories, which would also store powder, uniforms and other equipment. Since the British remained an imminent threat, men were expected to regularly report to the armory, collect arms and engage in close-order drills so that they were prepared to respond to an attack. This was an absolute requirement for 2 simple reasons: 18th century military tactics required firing synchronized volleys to be effective, and the founders made the decision not to incur the expense of maintaining a standing army. The latter was an economic decision, an understandable one given the primarily agrarian nature of society at that time.

        As soon as the US established a large standing army the reasons for the 2nd Amendment ceased to exist entirely.

      • torr10

        and exactly what did the colonies use to purchase these weapons you so off handedly mention? There was no income tax for the government to use to pay for them. They brought their own weapons to the fight…at which point they became a well regulated militia, not an army.

      • torr10

        seems the army as you like to call it…was in place before the constitution was ratified.

      • Riehlthing

        Despite the legends and what we have learned in our own schools, the militia and minutemen did not win the war. Outside of one battle, that The Patriot borrowed inspiration from, but then changed it completely, our revolution was won by the regular army and by the French. France was fighting a war with England at the same time as we were, but just not here until their navy came in late. The French were selling us supplies cheap (thank you Benjamin Franklin for getting that for us) and kept the main British army and navy from ever being brought to America. If they hadn’t, the British would easily have destroyed the revolution.

      • Howard Sands

        Nor are they an individual

      • Reynard Vulpes

        Sad that you should be educated as well as you are an not notice the comma, and the meaning. The clause that recognizes the right to bear arms does not depend on the existence of the militia phrase.

        It simply uses the preexisting right (all rights properly named rights already exist and can only be recognized) of a citizens to be possessed of arms as the method of forming a militia if needed.

        It does NOT say, sir, that the right ceases to exist if no militia is needed.

        Use logic and proper syntax sir. I implore you.

      • Regulated also means – To put or maintain in order

        and it also means- To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning
        But I guess you would much rather pick the one that serves your agenda. Lets not forget also that the Militia was the people.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        It meant when it was written what it means now the context of a militia. Note that it doesn’t say “regulate guns.”

        Do you know what a “well regulated,” group of soldiers at arms is, sir? It means they are turned out properly, trained properly, and are ready to serve. Nothing more.

        I cannot be sure what country you are from, and I don’t pretend to understand all nuances of say British English, but I do know American English and have read considerably from the various papers of the Founders. Regulated means regulated like a clock, NOT regulations.

        You are aware that persons or things can be regulated without regulations as pertains to law, are you not?

      • torr10

        No they cannot. Even the clockwork you mention is regulated by the laws of physics. Laws of physics are a very severe form of regulation. Do you ever think beyond what you read? It certainly does not sound like it.

    • I had someone attack me ad hominem when I attacked the Second Amendment. He used the word “regular” vs “regulated”. Ha!

    • dissenter

      In theory, Andrew, we are supposed to use the canons of construction developed under your common law. In practice, judges substitute their will for an objective and principled reading of the law. Frankly, we made a mistake revolting in the first place, for now, we live under the thumb of a judocracy.

      Sardonic editorial commentary aside, “[a] constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.” Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580, 586 (1880). The framers wanted to avoid the creation of a national army, on the grounds that if you have one, you are tempted to use it. For that reason, that clause should be seen as prefatory, resting on the assumption that each state would create its own “national guard,” as it were.

      I would submit that the 2AM should be interpreted under the rule of Ashby v. White [1703] 92 Eng.Rep. 126, 136 (H.C.): as a matter of law and logic, you cannot have a “right” without an effective remedy for its breach. Without the means to resist tyranny, you have no right to resist it. Similarly there can be no “collective” right without a corresponding individual right. Ergo, the kind of gun control which the Left here wishes to impose offends the Constitution.

      In Great Britain, there is no Constitution; Parliament is the supreme expression of the people’s will. Your Bill of Rights is a mere statute, subject to repeal at any moment. Here, the judges merely ignore it when it becomes inconvenient.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        LOL, The Bill of Rights is not so easily repealed. And no, the judges do not ignore and pay it attention due to our rights of appeal to higher courts. Those courts determined the Constitutionality of the court’s decisions, and they use this one, ours, to do so.

        That makes it more than a mere statute. It makes it the Supreme Law of our Lands. And why we have a Supreme Court.

        So you parliament has no guiding documents and narratives? Interesting thought, a Brit ignorant of the truth of common law and the Magna Carta.

    • The Founding Fathers put “regulated” in the 2nd Amendment because, as they wrote, they thought every able-bodied man in America should consider it his duty to report for military duty if the country was threatened with invasion or insurrection. In fact, in America’s first few years militia service was mandatory. Despite modern propaganda, this was the reason they thought gun rights should be protected, not to protect from tyranny within their own government. (Most of the quotes supposedly from Founding Fathers about this that are floating around the Internet are fake–even George Washington said in his Farewell Address that a country’s liberty must include “respect for its authority”.)

      • daifung

        Washington said it best himself:

        “The distinction between a well-regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter.”

        You are one of the few people who seems to understand the historical context in which the 2nd amendment had meaning; the NRA nuts definitely don’t. The new US could not afford to maintain a standing army so it had to be left to a citizen’s militia.

      • torr10

        And that citizen’s militia was armed with it’s own private weapons. So by their own conclusion, we need to be armed with our own private weapons to protect ourselves. That rapist in your daughter’s bedroom….he’s invading your home and family.

      • daifung

        At the onset of the war civilians used their own arms, largely hunting muskets & rifles that were poorly suited to 18th-century warfare. During that period the colonists didn’t exactly acquit themselves well when faced with British regulars (let alone cavalry).

        As for the ‘rapist in the bedroom’, in the US it is statistically far more likely that person will be a friend or family member who is well known to you, which means you are unlikely to prevent the crime. Let’s not forget that firearm injuries by accident outpace those attributed to crime.

      • torr10

        I feel sorry for your wife or daughter, knowing that you are willing to put their safety in the hands of statistics. The same statisticians that put estimated numbers on the amount of rapes occurring in our armed forces that aren’t reported. Interesting how you can estimate something that isn’t reported…just like you can predict your wife or daughter will never be raped.
        It must be nice to live in your reality. Unfortunately, I live in the real world where it is my job to protect my family.

      • Are they helpless? Why can’t they do that themselves?

        I do not need a man protecting me. I can do that myself, thank you. But I will not use a gun to do so.

      • torr10

        Good luck to you. When a rapist sneeks into your bedroom and holds you captive at gunpoint, I wish you luck. Women like you, falsely confident in their abilities, are often targets of criminals. Rest assured, should I walk by and hear your screams for help….I will assist you, with my gun…regardless of your immaturity here. I’m sure you will be very enlightened when the occasion arises and accept help from anyone, no matter where their sex organs are….or maybe you’re just stupid.

      • Whatever, dude. Honestly, you’re just living in Wayne LaPierre’s fantasy world.

      • torr10

        I can read and listen to different points of view quite clearly. I don’t need other’s fantasy lands. You on the other hand obviously live in a fantasy land if you think yo can defend yourself or others adequately. There is always someone out there that can kick your ass and do what they want with your unconscious body. There are less that can have their way with me because I will defend myself and my family much more adequately than any liberal out there.
        But I’m still waiting for an answer… will you liberals make the criminals abide by your gun control laws?

      • CRmom89

        As a rape victim; you have to be the most offensive person I have ever met. By the way; my rapist was my HUSBAND. Not some random dude who decided to break into my house. Also, if you have kids in the house (and of course you are responsible enough to store your gun correctly); the odds of you managing to get and load your gun before a “bad guy” gets your are slim to none.

      • torr10

        So since your husband was an ass, I’m supposed to give up my right to protect my family? Don’t think so. I don’t have to get and load my gun. I keep it ready and close by. There are many recorded instances where having a gun handy has prevented issues. I have a friend whose 14 yo grandson shot an intruder and stopped a robbery and possible rape of his 17 yo sister. There were three of them. Should he have stood by and watched or been a victim himself…because your husband was an ass?

      • torr10

        Did you even bother to read what you wrote? How astounding that you can contradict yourself so well and yet so blindly. What do you think an ‘insurrection’ would be? Could it be to protect ourselves from tyranny? Could it be…oh I don’t know, a REVOLUTION? Could that invasion be from a government threatening to take your rights away from you? sad, really.

      • You mean that familiar, paranoid, fantastic scenario that will never actually happen?

      • torr10

        I mean the one like the one that set us free from British rule. The one that people all around the world are fighting at this very moment. The one that our soldiers are dying overseas to help people gain freedom from tyrants. Ever heard of Hussein? Read a paper or listen to the news much? How about the tyrannical rule of a murderer that broke into your house?
        Were you issued that box you can’t think out of or did you go to a liberal school painted with pansies and daisies on the walls?

      • daifung

        The tyranny I most fear is the tyranny of the ignorant and uninformed, like someone who would actually compare the American Revolution to the Iraq Wars. Let’s not forget that the US played a big part in arming Sadam (and turning a blind eye to his abuse of Kurdish minorities) when we were funding and supporting his war with Iran. Learn the facts of your own history and stop watching Fox News.

      • torr10

        The tyranny I fear most is the one of the peoples who can’t think for themselves. You are spouting information without any thought process being applied. The US played a part in arming Sadam, may be true….and is the exact reason why I want to be able to defend myself from a government that makes bad decisions. Perhaps you should read from multiple sources and realize not all the news you see on CNN is correct either. There is always more than one side of a story and you have only seen your liberal aspect through a very narrow view.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        But has, sir, has. More than once.

      • Torch

        Okay. Here’s the deal. I’ll bet you $10k that there will be an election for President in the next election cycle without need for a revolution with out caps. Will have a pieceful turn over of power as there has been since our first President George Washington.

      • torr10

        Glad to know that you’re willing to bet your future and that of our children on the events of the next election. I do not want my rights subjugated by people like you nor do I want my children to be unprotected.

        This entire discussion is absolutely about government control. The government is trying to control our ‘rights’. Rights are God given, not government given. It is your right to drive the vehicle of your choice. I personally think SUVs should be outlawed, but you have every right to own and drive one…and I’m not going to attempt to take that right from you. You should not have the right to tell me what I can own. Especially people in the government that know so little about firearms.

      • CRmom89

        Rights come with responsibilities. I notice that most people who own a gun are not well trained or set up.

      • Ereka

        Finally, someone else understands!

    • daifung

      The cast majority of people who quote the 2nd amendment, particularly the phrase ‘a well regulated militia’, have no idea what they are talking about. The term ‘well regulated’ has nothing to do with ‘regulations’ as we understand the term today. Rather than explaining myself, I will point you to the words of General George Washington on the subject.

      “The distinction between a well-regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter.”

      Anyone who reads the 2nd amendment in the context within which it was written can easily understand it has nothing to do with guaranteeing an individual right to own guns. The primary purpose was to establish a system of national defense in the absence of a standing army, which the new nation could not possibly afford It has been fundamentally irrelevant since the US established a large standing army.

      • torr10

        So where was your standing army when my house was broken into? Where was your standing army when I was mugged? They weren’t there protecting me….

      • Reynard Vulpes

        LOL, that’s nice, but it’s quite hard to get around the second phrase after the comma. It shows the founders recognized the right of the citizens to bear arms … and they intended to use that rightfully armed citizen as militia if needed.

        That we don’t need a militia now, I can hope at any rate, does not negate the right to bear arms by the citizens.

        Pretty darn simple.

      • torr10

        From the likes of people like him, we may need that militia fairly soon…

    • Sir, you seem to have a much better grasp of our Constitution’s meaning than our own conservative party membership.

    • That well regulated Militia became the National Guard.

      • torr10

        And where will that national guard be when someone kicks down your door and starts to rape your wife…or you? When seconds counts, police are only moments away.

      • I don’t know about your doors, but at my house, the kicking in and/or breaking down of a door (especially if there’s a security door, which many people have nowadays) would not be instantaneous. There would be enough time for me (and my significant other) to jump out of bed, grab my wallet (and my cat), climb out the window, and run like hell.

        I don’t get this fetish about confronting home intruders. There is absolutely nothing in my home worth my life. If an intruder wants anything in my home, s/he can damn well have it.

      • torr10

        I can’t jump and run, thank you. So I should just give up my life and my wife’s because you can and I can’t? I have my memories in here that I do consider worth dying to protect. I don’t know what world you live in but not everyone is the same and you should NOT have the right to tell me how to protect myself and my loved ones.

      • torr10

        And just so you know, I was using the ‘break the door down’ as an example. Did you ever hear about the crimes that happen when your home is broken into while you’re sleeping? How will you run when someone wakes you up while they’re in your bedroom? Would you mind sharing the euphoric world you live in? I sure do miss the days when it more like that. Oh wait…that’s when I was kid and people were more conservative.

      • ter

        first you keep bringing up rape, which is a horrible thing, I wouldn’t need a gun if someone is raping my daughter or my wife I could take them out with my bare hands. If they have a knife I can disarm them If they have a gun they are either not using it while raping or if they are my having a gun would just put my loved one in more danger. My greatest weapon is my intellect and will. I still believe we should be able to have guns, and I believe that every gun sale should have a background check, period. No one is trying to take away your guns. Quit listening to the rhetoric, investigate on your own, many articles site sources for their numbers check them out yourself then look up opposing articles and check out their sources. Make your own informed decisions.

      • torr10

        You keep on believing Superman….I guess you are really the MMA World Champion so you can disarm anyone and defeat anyone. Perhaps you should take your own advice and quit listening to the rhetoric..dictatorships start by disarming the people. So…you can disarm someone but the government can’t? Where do you get your drugs? Self confidence is good, but when it borders on stupidity, it’s useless. And you defending your family against an armed intruder hell bent on harming them….is fantasy. Read the news and listen to something other than a liberal agenda station.

    • Well regulated refers to how a militia is organized and trained. It talks about this in the body of the constitution.

    • torr10

      Perhaps we’re not ignoring anything. Perhaps you are reading it with an English eye and not an American one. How about breaking it up into its two components? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I don’t recall there ever being a soldier or sailor or marine handy when our women are getting mugged and raped in the local Walmart parking lot. When seconds matter, police are only minutes away. Would you want your daughter to be in that parking lot screaming her head off waiting for the police to come rescue her? Perhaps a bobbie with a stick could fend off an armed criminal better? Remember when guns were against the law in England? Yet criminals still had them? So perhaps you should clean up your own yard before you start critizing us. We won our freedom from your country with our guns because we didn’t like the way you think. Why should we like it now? And when are you coming to get Peirs?

      • Alexander Hamilton
        Federalist No. 29

        “If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

    • Reynard Vulpes

      So why did you sir, just ignore the rest of our Second Amendment?

      Did you know, sir, that there is a comma between the phrases, setting aside as an independent clause the second portion?

      The 2nd does NOT innumerate our privilege any more than any other of our amendments, and they always refer to RIGHTS, and THE PEOPLE.

      The 2nd merely states something the founders already took for granted, and frankly we don’t need it in the least. It just happened that in their desire to maintain the capability to quickly muster a militia they focused in on the already existing right (You don’t GIVE rights, they are assumed, or you call them something else with a different meaning).

      This right allowed them to hope to be able to muster the militia. That is all that it means, but it most clearly points out an existing right, a concept that applies totally in our constitution where the words Right or Rights and The People occur.

      You sir are what we refused to be, a subject. We preferred then and now to be citizens, and we know our rights as citizens. They do not even need to be enumerated except for those that might try to take them from us.

      Have a nice day, cousin.

    • Hope Gumm

      It always meant to me that we have a good and regulated National Guard in every State, and anything or anytime they need, we have a Federal

    • Howard Sands

      The word “militia” is important also. These words are not mentioned when the gun nuts have someone read the constitution to them.

      • Procras108r85

        Apparently you aren’t familiar with our Supreme Court. They D.C. v Heller of 2008 ruling determined that being part of a militia wasn’t a prerequisite for gun ownership. Also that defense of home and self are perfectly acceptable reasons for use of a firearm. It ruled on the legality of owning handguns as well.

        But way to go trying to sound like you know something.

      • Howard Sands

        Thanks for the compliment. Is there something I said that was inaccurate? Perhaps you can answer without sarcasm. Just perhaps.

      • Procras108r85

        It depends on how you determine what is inaccurate. Does the original writing of the second amendment mention a militia? Yes. Is it relevant now? No.

        A common theme amongst those who are for gun sanctions (be it bans or unnecessary additional laws) is pointing out how the amendment was originally written and implying that this is still the case today. The context of your comment certainly seems to indicate this.

  • Cornbreasha

    Honestly anything that can rapidly fire bullets from holding down a trigger shouldn’t be in the hands of the public along with anything that explodes…all it takes is 1 bullet to kill and less to scare away a robber. You don’t need a rapid fire sub machine gun to keep your kids safe.

    • dissenter

      Depends on who the enemy is. The highest and best use of a Glock with a 32-round cartridge is in emptying it into the body of a tyrannical public official. Imagine what could have been, had an ordinary German had one to fire at Hitler during one of his many public spectacles….

      • You do know that Hitler reversed the gun laws of the prior government. He encouraged gun ownership for everyone except Jews.

        I didn’t think so…

      • torr10

        tell that to a Jew and see how much support you get….

    • torr10

      hope you can all three of those rapists with one shot….and not miss any…of course if you do they can still shoot you with the 32 rounds they illegally own while they rape your daughter or wife..or you…

    • Reynard Vulpes

      You’ll be most pleased to know sir or madam, that indeed so few own such weapons as you describe, and they have been used illegally so little (once, back in the late 30’s an illegally obtained Thompson Sub Machine gun was used by a police officer to murder someone) that you’ve nothing to worry about from them except for this:

      The market pressure created by gun prohibition is making such guns, battle field weaponry, is attracting those who smuggle illicit contraband even as you and I diddle the keys.

      You are referring to weaponry that fires once for each time the trigger is pulled, no more. The same action that countless millions hunting rifles and shotguns and pistols use that have been sold in this country for about 150 years now. Possibly a bit more.

      You’ll find too, if you wish to go there, that “high powered ammunition,” which is also up for prohibition is what those rifles use. Big game cartridges easily can be used to take a car apart, let alone a protective vest.

      The “assault rifle,” you think you are referring to is a dinky underpowered thing that when spray fired misses with over 95 percent of its projectiles. But a simple hunting rifle reverses that statistic, where only fire percent of shots will be missed.

      Think about it. With all that firepower you think you know about hardly a shot fired hits the target. And when it does it rarely kills. And they are not easy to aim when you start blasting off as fast as you can pull the trigger.

  • Ronald Reagan was conservative but, in 1994, Reagan had the audacity (right before the passage of the assault weapons ban) to say, “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
    Ronald Reagan stated that “All military-type assault weapons should be banned for all civilian use except legitimate government law enforcement.”

    • dissenter

      Given his Alzheimers, anything Reagan said past 1990 is questionable, at best.

  • Mr. Smith

    Wow. I forgot all about the Brady bill… Thank for reminding us!

  • Pharologist

    All Presidents seem to follow the same lead. Make the majority pay for the sins of the minority.

  • Edward Dee Mouser

    I’m one of those that have broke the law and cant own a gun.It was my fault and it’s been since 1979,but I can have a bow and I teach my boys how to use a bow for hunting and hand to hand self control.All others should have to obey the laws of the land,like it or not thats the way it is.

  • harleyman54904

    The often used comment by the NRA: “Gun regulations do nothing to deter criminals from committing these crimes because criminals don’t obey laws.” is one that looks at the issue from the wrong direction. The intention of background checks is to keep law-abiding citizens from being able to sell deadly weapons to non-law-abiding citizens. With the law-abiding citizen no longer being able to legally sell deadly weapons to criminals we begin to lower the number of guns in the hands of criminals, thus lowering the gun murder rate. Now we have to stop on-line sales of deadly weapons as well as ammunition without some form of checks.

  • The sad thing about this is that, even though this article is satire, this is exactly what some of these people (hello, new NRA president!) are saying.

  • dissenter

    AC: “So, a shooting happened. Is that really a reason for some knee-jerk emotional reaction”

    No. As they say in law school, “hard cases make for bad law.” We have to look at this dispassionately, interpreting the 2Am as the Framers intended. History establishes that the only security against the tyranny of government lies in force. Give that up, and you are in ruin.

    Remember, democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner. A republic is a lamb with an AK-47.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon


      • dissenter

        Just understand that when you disagree with this, you disagree with the Framers. “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” John Adams, Notes for an oration at Braintree (Spring 1772), reprinted in, David McCullough, John Adams 70 (2001). “[E]xperience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson, “A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge” (Bill 79), Preamble (1778).

        Their antidote to tyranny was an armed populace. What is yours?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Their “tyranny” was from England. What “tyranny” have you experienced here? And you really think you would be able to take on the entire US military? I’d pay good money to see that. Let me know when you have a fleet of F-22s and drones at your disposal.

      • daifung

        The moment the US established a standing army they abandoned the principles you espouse. If you want to get back to the state of liberty at the time of the founders you need to argue loudly for the elimination of the US military, replacing it entirely with individual state militias.

  • km

    tell it to Big Sis, the buyer of the most hollow point bullets of anyone in the history of the world.

  • Will

    The INDIVIDUAL ownership of guns is good, however, the 2nd AMENDMENT pertains to ‘A well regulated militia…….’ …….and ‘militia’ is defined as (1) a well REGULATED civilan defense force of CIVILIANS (non-military members, and not armed forces reserve member forces)…………….therefor, any ‘guns,rifles, pistols’ SHOULD be enforced. It does NOT permit and/or allow the state or federal government to ‘take away’ said arms from PRIVATE citizens. Now, if this means ‘said citizen’ is, or needs, to pass a bacground check, the SO BE IT.

  • torr10

    I hate when people are so uneducated about guns and try to force their opinions on others. That is what pisses off the Law Abiding gun owners of the country. Let’s outlaw baseball bats….and alcohol. I don’t drink so alcohol must be bad, let’s stop everyone from drinking since people are killed by drunk drivers. Better yet….let’s ban cars…

  • Freedom to kill

    By: Lluís Bassets | July 28, 2012

    There are very polarized debate on the right to keep and bear arms in the United States. Erupts whenever a massacre like the one perpetrated by James Holmes film Aurora (Colorado). Also, as you pay attention to the war that kept the armies of the drug in Mexico with assault weapons purchased the vast majority in the neighboring country. Less attention are the weapons in the daily violence, but reached alarming proportions. The rate of firearm homicides is the highest among developed countries: 80 deaths a day.

    There is a gun for every citizen: 300 000 000 in total. More than Yemen, second in the world in number of guns per citizen. The domestic arsenal is growing steadily, but as wealth: increasingly fewer hands. In 1973 there was a gun in one of every two homes, now one in five. Times have been of greater control and other more lax. Now we are in one of these, thanks to the action of the pressure group that constitutes about National Rifle Association.

    Everything gives facilities to the murderers. There are 78,000 vendors, 26,000 shops and many fairs where they sell weapons without restrictions: Las Vegas Sands, Sheldon Adelson, has one of the largest. There are controls, of course, but few and weak, in charge of the Office of Alcohol, Snuff, Firearms and Explosives, with its 2,500 agents, insufficient for a market as large. The revocation of a license, usually for sale to criminals, it takes on average 15 months to become effective. Only 20% of the stores are inspected annually. According to the Journal Sentinel, “control federal institutions rarely revokes a license, and when they do, the sellers quickly circumvent the suspension by a friend, relative or acquaintance to get a new license.” The Milwaukee Journal has located 35 vendors still working revoked in connection with a criminal clientele.

    The foundation of this drift is the interpretation of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “As well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State, shall not limit the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” For progressive judges is a right subject to membership in a state armed force and inviolable individual right for conservatives. The two presidential candidates, Obama and the applicant holder Romney, prefer to hide their preference, but the ban if the first and second could legislated against when he was governor of Massachusetts. The debate also affects freedom of the Länder to legislate without federal government interference. But the free market should mainly manufacturers, dealers and murderers.

  • The only amendment all the gun lovers care about is the second, what ever happened to the rest of them, that ya.all seem to ignore. Such as freedom of religion, a right to happiness, NO RELIGION in politics, that’e a biggie for me. You want your cake and eat it too. Half of the owners are criminals, why don’t you get that!

  • Andrew Wilson, You’re so right. Nothing is regulated, just every man for himself and screw thy neighbor. The right to bear arms was intended to be used against incoming attacks, not to be a traitor to your own country, as so many of these people think. Our country has over 3 million survivalists, how freaking scary is that. All of them ready to take up arms against our government. Can you say crazy paranoid? Not to mention the millions of KKK infiltrating our cities and government at all levels, spreading hate and violence, breeding on peoples fears, and the weak minded that listen to and follow them. Then there’s the millions of just the plain everyday, whacked out people in cults all over this country. All with guns to use against our citizens and our government. Then they try to convince the rest of us that they’re not crazy, yea, right! Last note; I do realize there are normal, good, caring people here. They obey our laws and care about our kids getting cut down in schools. They own guns for sport and protection, but not as many as they want us to believe.

  • Andy the Spoiler

    FBI crime statistics show a distinct reduction in firearm murders as a percentage of population over the last two decades. Obviously, many of you do not believe the FBI. Just as obviously, reduced murder rates were not caused by reduced gun ownership. Gun sales have exceeded all previous records.

    FBI statistics also show that any area where conceal carry is allowed crime has been reduced. Conversely, in areas where gun control is the strictest crime has continued to increase. Look at Chicago, LA, Washington DC, etc.

    If you live in an area where there are more murders, it is any area where there is gang and drug activity. Ask any police officer if he has heard of a murder that was committed with a legal firearm. FBI statistics show that less than one tenth of one percent of all gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners.

    Fact: When asked why they did not invade the United States, Japanese generals replied, “Are you crazy? Do you know how many guns those people have?”

    These are facts. You are entitled to your own opinions…….but not your own facts.

  • Jeff Taipale

    I’m so tired of hearing about the “Founding Fathers.” The last time I checked, the Founding Fathers were all dead. Here, let me check again…
    … Yep. Still DEAD. It’s not their country anymore, it’s ours. If they did anything right they made the Constitution amendable. It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with something up to date and unambiguous. Something that wasn’t written to cover the ownership of muzzle-loaders.

  • Peter

    deleted as crap!

  • califcowgirl1955

    WE are required to have a background check to have a drivers license, run a day care, apply for a job, cut hair, or get a job. SO why not have a back ground check on buying a gun? And have a database with this information that is shared by other gun sellers and authorities?
    IF someone tells their doctor or pastor they are going to kill everyone, and those folks don’t tell authories, should they be held accoutable?
    If , as bartender, a drunk person leaves your bar and gets in a fatal accident, you are held accountable. Why not someone who SELLS a gun?
    NRA has done a great job in spreading fear amongst the masses turned them into gun buying paranoid citizens, who see the government as the boogyman coming for their guns.
    I grew up in the country with my father hunting for our food, like deer and hogs. I still can’t understand why you need a machine gun, won’t you get lead in your teeth if you eat the meat?

  • John Misilli

    Is taking words out of context an art or a science?

  • sonny

    Till someone from the GOP’s leadership gets hurt or worse gets killed…there will be no bill to regulate gun sales…