text:
Patch Poll: Have Obama's Re-Election and/or Recent Shootings Prompted You to Buy A Gun?
Fear of gun control measures and safety concerns after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings have triggered gun sales.
As some people push for gun control, more stringent background checks on gun buyers or reinstituting the assault weapons ban, others are doing just the opposite—buying guns for the first time, adding more guns to their arsenals or at least stocking up on ammunition.
Since 2008, when Barack Obama was first elected president, an estimated 67 million firearms have been purchased in the United States, according to the Kansas City Star—more than were sold in almost seven years before his first election. Nationwide, more than 2.7 million of those checks were recorded for December 2012, according to statistics kept by the FBI.
Since late 1998, when federal law began mandating checks for prospective gun buyers, the only other month that exceeded the 2 million mark was November 2012 — when Obama won a second term, the Star reports. The Black Friday after the Nov. 6 election, gun sales across the country broke records, crashing the FBI's background check system, according to The Denver Post.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, where 26 students and educators died at the hands of a lone gunman, have also fueled gun sales in the last few months—and National Rifle Association membership. The Huffington Post reports that the NRA's paying member ranks have grown by 100,000 in the wake of the December school shooting in Connecticut.
Vice President Joe Biden, who is heading up an interagency task force on gun violence at Obama's request after the Sandy Hook incident, has said universal background checks on gun buyers and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines are emerging as a consensus, the Christian Science Monitor reports. Over the past days several Republican lawmakers have said they could support action on high-capacity magazines but would oppose any ban on assault weapons.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads.
Take our poll and tell us in the comments section your feelings about the issues.
proud American
1:47 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
look at the history of gun control in different countries
1929 Soviet Union established gun control--1929-1953 approx 20million dissidents unable to defend themselves rounded up and killed.
1911 Turkey established gun control 1915-1917 1.5 million Armenians unable to defend themselves rounded up exterminated
1938 Germany established gun control 1939-1945 13 million Jews unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
1935 China established gun control 1948-1952 20 million political dissidents unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
1964 Guatemala established gun control 1964-198, 1100,000 Mayan Indians unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
1970 Uganda established gun control 1971-1979 300,000 Christians unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterrminated
1956 Cambodia established gun control 1975-1977 i million educated people unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
20th Century defendless people rounded up and exterminated because of gun control 56 million
With guns we are citizens without we are subjects not saying we are their yet but eveytime this issues is brought up we get a little closer to these facts don't you think terrorist would like to see more gun control in this country
Ed Adams
5:20 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
anything close to and including multi clip multi shot firearms should be illegal
Mark A.
5:51 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Note that the 2nd amendment doesn't say the right to bear ALL arms. Nobody is trying to take away ALL your guns. Just the ones that are the ones most commonly used in school rampages. And even then, nobody's even going to take your assault weapons. Just place restrictions on buying new ones. So Jeez, chill out.
8:53 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Mark A, the 2nd Amendment says we have a right to bear arms, that means I have the right to choose what type of guns I want to own. It does not mean the Government should tell me what type of gun to own and how many bullets it should hold.
clint eastwood
8:31 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
If the Judges and courts would enforce the laws we have now we would not have that big a problem but every time there is a person arrested with a gun what happens is a slap on the wrist . Every day at least 10 people get arrested in the city of pgh for gun violations and they are back out on the streets before the police have the paperwork done . More laws don't do anything ..... Have our judges be held accountable for not enforcing what laws we have...when criminals know there will be long jail time for their actions not probation things might change...
Maria Miller
9:21 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
I keep hearing gun advocates ask why no one wants to take away cars even though people are killed with them. Fine, then let's regulate guns like we do cars. We could make people take a test to get a license to use a gun, make owners register guns and finally make gun owners carry insurance on these guns.
10:31 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Comparing fatalities caused by guns vs. vehicles is irrelevant since there is a difference in intent to commit violence.
A more comparable analogy would be fatalities committed while breaking the law with a gun vs. vehicle. Specifically, during a violent crime and while driving under the influence. Gun control regulations target the law abiding individuals using a naive approach that has proven to be a failure, e.g., drug war, airport 'security', prohibition, standardized testing, quantitative easing, etc. If the same approach is applied to driving under the influence, regulations would make it more difficult for sober people to buy and operate a vehicle.
Rather than looking at what causes these people to do these awful things, this kindergarten country of ours wants to just try to patch it up with a band-aid. Problem is the band-aid only offers a temporary solution and will likely make things worse in the long-run. Restricting access to guns will not fix the problem. Look at the recent shooting in CA. The kid brought a non-semiautomatic, non-'assault' shotgun to school to shoot a couple of specific kids. No gun control regulation would have stopped that incident. There is a good chance that addressing the alleged bully behavior that prompted the incident would have though. (Look up how many of these shooting are committed by people on prescription antidepressants)
proud American
10:46 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
I'm a responsible gun owner and parent and I have help raise 5 other children. The first step in this issue is to teach reality from fantasy. If a parent wants to let their child play violent video games they need to teach the difference between the two . Guns kill and they don't get back up like when you turn the game back on. You need to teach respect of a firearm and what it can do. Gun laws are needed. background checks are needed, a waiting period to receive guns is also ok in my book. Now you have to face reality how many crooks are going to registor they guns and no matter how many regulations you put on the law biding citizen we will never know where these guns are. If a crook was going to commit a crime do you think he would use a gun registored in his name. The government can't even keep track of the automatic weapons they put in the hands of drug lords and gangs in Mexico in case you forgot Fast and Furious. Another part and a major part of this issue is mental health that killer in that school had severe mental issue and we will never know how the parents really handled it or if the mental health system let them down. The mother lived with him and as far as we knew he had severe mental issues and should have not have had access to those guns. You want people to have test to be able to have guns maybe people should be tested before they are allowed to raise children.
proud American
10:48 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Think about how many state mental hospital where closed down in this area and a lot of the patients where put into group homes they where put into these institutions for a reason now they are in group home able to be among the general population. The majority of the patients are doing fine but it only takes one. I would like to see this issue address as strongly as law biding gun owners are be push and the government to work as strong on this issue as they are working on taking away our gun rights.
Jon Wain
11:38 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Guns verses cars. Tired of that comparison.Gun laws should change with the times just like automoble standards change.Cars didn't have seat belts, air bags ,head restaints,gas shut offs in the past. They are law now to keep the public safe. cars are not used as mass murder weapons. The more I read and listen to gun owners the more I think the gun has become a symbol of power.Not all gun owners just the ones that won't use lodgic when it comes to finding the answer to stop mass murder. I really think they believe if you don't have guns then you are not a patriot.
12:45 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Quoting: "... cars are not used as mass murder weapons. ..."
Every year, 17,000 people are killed because of drunken driving. *Another 40,000 are injured. Some recent reports have indicated the 17,000 may be decreasing in recent years. But, the fact remains that cars do kill others because of irresponsible actions. The Newtown, CT event killed 28 people in one day. Every day, 28 people are killed in the US because of drunken driving, yes EVERY DAY.
Guns kill others because irresponsible actions. Guns in and of themselves are neutral. Guns in the hands of irresponsible people wanting to kill others, or at least do harm, is the problem. Yes, we can talk of gun control, we can talk of mental illness, but, in the end, the vast majority of killings are done by those wishing to do harm, often fatal, to others. How many of the 500 murders in Chicago in 2012 were done by those with assault weapons, those with mental health issues? The killings in and around Pittsburgh on a weekly basis, ... how many are done with assault weapons, or by those with mental health issues? Not many. Most shootings are done by those with hand guns, and those who have never been diagnosed or suspected of having mental health issues.
All the raving in Wash DC last week is merely political theater. None of the suggestions would have prevented the recent mass killings. The last 10 such events would have not been prevented. Meanwhile the major fiscal issues of our nation go wanting.
12:48 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
One more thing ...
The certainty of the recent political rhetoric is the large uptick in buying of guns and ammunition. Any time over the past decade, or more, the political rhetoric, meetings, commissions, studies, hearings, and other charades have done wonders for the growth of gun ownership. No amount of advertising or promotion could ever achieve the success as well as the political ranting.
proud American
12:55 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
You are right Roger a lot of killings are just plain gangs for revenge and crooks. You are also right this takes away from the financial mess this country is in. The sad thingis we fall for that a lot bring out a major subject to the fore front and we forget the one thing that will destroy this country if not brought under control wasteful spending and massive debt.
James Dale Barrington
12:03 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
I agree Joseph, looking at the larger issues to what creates this culture of violence we are a part of is the better approach. However, I do believe it should include these crazed ideas we have for possessing weapons to defend our lives in the first place. Instead of buying a gun to protect myself and my family why not seek (with the same enthusiasm) to find ways to address the reasons behind that response. -- Buying a gun because Obama was elected president or because of the Newtown tragedy incident or it being the last vestiges of our individual rights we have as citizens are very serious implications. -- Personally, I don't buy it. I suspect gun sales went up for reasons entirely on our own making. It's an excuse to politicize a faction of our citizens into a political heavyweight that the NRA decision makers counts on when challenged, - and most politicians back down from them. -- We need a dialogue about how violence finds it so easy to express itself when 'freedom and/with responsibility' have stopped talking to one another. For the citizens of a country - is it ever really necessary to have an assault gun?? -- I don't think so... It's a symptom to a culture which needs to be reigned back into a civil community where sanity rules the purse strings instead of an avarice, greedy corporatocracy. Do not militarize our schools, instead, teach them to respect differences, encourage diversity, employee the disabled and support one another when teaching their curriculum.
2:02 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
James, three of the top four box office ratings for movies in the weeks following Newtown were movies filled with violence and mayhem. The appetite for this stuff is huge, and the movies are an indicator. We can read all the polls about what people SAY regarding violence, and the pretended outrage, but the ticket buyers ACTED. The actions are clear, "we thrive on violence and can't get enough."
Look at the promos on TV for future shows, or new movies just arriving at the theaters. Without doing a statistical study, I suspect that four of five, and perhaps even higher rates, they are scenes with all manner of mayhem. Many of the promo scenes include use of assault rifles to blow away others. Also, are explosions, hand fighting, and other destructive measures.
Apparently, the public is willing to say they are offended by violence, and pose an outrage, "we must do something about it, ... and now!" but, in reality, support it with their money at the box office.
The video games is another path, which I will let somebody else address.
My point is that the actions of the general public are consistent with the violence, which politicians, psychologists, and others, try to explain away. We claim "everybody is good," and then wonder why the "good people" do violent things. Only when we come to understand that evil lurks within the hearts of everybody, and address individuals' hearts, will anything change.
proud American
1:01 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Everyone has a choice if you want to own a gun or not and it doesn't make you any less of a patriot. James we would all love to see you type of world but until this world is reality and their are no more crooks and criminals ,gang bangers, terriorist I have the right to protect my home. No one can protect my home at the time of an invasion but me not even the police they arrive after the fact to clean up the mess.
9:10 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Proud American, I so agree with you on this. It is I who has to defend my home and I have taught my children respect of guns, that they are not toys. There is to much violence coming out of Hollywood and Video games and instead of banning guns, they should put a ban on Violence in Movies and a ban on how much violence there is in video games.
James Dale Barrington
3:04 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Roger - I do not necessarily disagree with you, but you are speaking to the 'symptoms' (maybe) of culture's violent behavior. We like the rush that violence gives us which may or may not lead to violent behavior. -- I suggests we as a society need to talk about how 'freedom and/with responsibility' can began a conversation again with violence in America as the central motif. Our culture needs to change, that I can agree with. However, I am of the persuasion that both citizen and political leadership have the ability to lead in this discussion, and can began helping in that dynamic to a much better outcome. Changing the rules of the game might be a good start; keeping 'big money interests' out of the conversation. Nothing will fully succeed, but I'm of the opinion a lot can. Joe Biden needs to have 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats, and 4 Independents as a special committee who have decided opinions about this matter, plus, he needs to listen to them. -- It could work. We are too violent as a nation. The world knows it, and if truth be known, we know it.
7:58 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Quoting: "... Joe Biden needs to have 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats, and 4 Independents as a special committee who have decided opinions about this matter, plus, he needs to listen to them. -- It could work. ..."
The foundational issues transcend political parties. Why do we think that if the right political commissions are assembled, make proposals, and execute, these personal responsibility questions will be solved? Why do we continue to think that external forces will make a real differences?
This is what happens when our society looses its moral compass, and looks to the legal system for answers. We know, from history, the changes at the individual level aren't going to be made through legal means. Do we really think that positive changes will emerge through laws?
James W. Wood
3:38 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Second Amendment
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States and then ratified by them.
As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
- Patrick Henry
"Proud American" is correct..... the rich are protected by armed guards so why do we not protect our children the same as the the rich ? The problem is mental health not guns! But no one wants to talk about mental health because it costs money to fix.
8:10 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Quoting: "... The problem is mental health not guns! But no one wants to talk about mental health because it costs money to fix."
I scanned the PG news stores from the past couple of weeks. I am able to watch TV news and read local newspapers most every day. The news is highly populated with stories of shootings. Sometimes they are drive-by shootings, sometimes in domestic situations, sometimes they are at the local drinking establishment, and sometimes they are part of other criminal activity (e.g. robbery). Several people in the Pittsburgh area have been killed since New Years Day. Others have been injured.
Also, the courts are always litigating cases where shootings are involved.
In none of these recent cases, mental health was never cited as the background problem. In only rare cases do we read that the shooter had a mental health problem.
When we read about gun violence in the deep urban scenes, often the description includes the word "gang." Being part of a gang, and exacting revenge has nothing to do with mental health. When we read about a romantic triangle, and one party chooses a shooting to resolve jealousy, mental health has nothing to do with the matter.
I know it is easy to try to explain behaviors through mental health. To be sure, some people in our society have mental health issues. But, rarely does this explanation provide help in dealing with gun violence.
5:14 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
I disagree with you when you blame it on mental health,while that is a problem,the larger problem is guns and those that aren't responsible enough to own them
9:17 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Bull it isn't the people who own guns legally that are going out and killing people. It is the ones that get them illegally, who are part of gangs or have mental health issues that goes out and does these killings.
Oren Spiegler
5:30 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Roger makes a superb point in noting the hypocrisy of society: the condemnation of violence which causes twenty-six innocent people to be slain through being riddled with bullets yet reveling in similar carnage in movies and television shows, where the bloodletting is classified as "entertainment": some entertainment. I wonder how we explain this phenomenon away.
This oddity has relevance in the world of sports as well. Hockey, football and rugby are the only sports where defenders are allowed to (and expected to) attack the ball (or puck) carrier. What do we think that instills in impressionable viewers who are taught to look up to their violent athlete idols?
6:17 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
500 Homicides in Chicago in 2012?? Wait, I thought Illinois and Chicago had the most strict gun laws. Oh.. that's right ,the honest law abiding citizens can't get guns easily and forget about a carry permit. I guess nobody explained the law to the criminals!!
When the Have nots can't get anymore free handouts because they think they are entitled, and those of us who "have" don't have anymore to be taken from us , then it will get ugly. That is when the shit will hit the fan and like someone already said earlier the Police only show up after the fact to clean up and write reports..
So all good law abiding Americans should arm themselves and have plenty of brass and lead. Those will be the precious metals in the future!!!
6:21 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
And the almost 50% of this survey respondents that "have never owned a gun" , now is the time to think about getting one or two to defend yourself and your loved ones.
same old story
6:39 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
this is where it starts. hassle the gun owners, over tax the smokes, tax drinks at the bar, limit the size of soft drinks, demand standards for school lunch's that no kid will eat, standard test in school that are nothing the kids have learned, kissing butts in other countries kicking butts. where does it end?
Glenn Robinson
7:44 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
I grew up in a home without guns. I wasn't even allowed to have play guns. However, I am now considering purchasing a weapon. I do not like the direction our governments are taking us. (federal, state and local) I'm getting sick and tired of other people taking away my ability to be personally responsible for my decisions and actions. And the people who want to make decisions for me are not to be trusted. I pray it never comes to it but I want to be able to defend myself, family and property if needed.
proud American
8:05 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Looks like we have a better chance be killed by Obama Care then we do guns
1:01 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Glen, That is a good step to take. You need to be responsible for yourself and protect yourself if needed.
Many people can't understand that you might need to take up arms AGAINST our government. In 1946, a group of Americans took up arms and confronted the Local Sheriff and his deputies who were stuffing the ballot box for the county elections for Sheriff. A gun battle ensued and the people counted the ballots in public which is how it should be. Read More Here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) Most of the anti gun liberals don't know a thing about American history. I don't think that the AMERICANS of Japanese descent thought they would ever have their property seized and be put in "camps" , but it happened.
bob balmer
6:48 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Jim. What about the anti gun conservatives? Do they know anything about American history?
bob balmer
9:46 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Any one can make numbers dance to support the cause of the week. The truth of the matter is that military style weapons are now in the hands of civillians. there are lots of options for available for protection, pistols,shotguns and rifles. assault style weapons with high capacity clips have no place in civillian hands. And I am sure that I can find as many like minded conservatives as there are liberals.
10:16 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Bob, your post illustrates one of the fundamental problems with this issue when it gets down to details. That problem is the term "assault weapon". And in your post, you come closer to being accurate than most, you use the term "assault style weapon".
The Assault Weapon Ban Law that was enacted several years ago, and subsequently left to expire was an attempt to legislate the outward appearance of certain guns. They did not attempt to define "assault weapon" in any terms other than what the gun looked like. Now, that Law also had bans on high capacity clips, but lets focus on the term "assault weapon" for the time being.
As anyone with a bit of gun education knows, the appearance of any given rifle is irrelevant to its performance. The prime example in Ruger's mini-14. In its stock model, the gun has a wooden stock and forearm assemble, a standard barrel with fixed sites, a very average looking gun. However, you can modify it with a folding stock, "AR Style" forearm, a flash suppressor, etc....all of the items listed in the aforementioned Assuault Weapons Ban Law...But guess what? Those modifications have absolutely NO BEARING on the the way the gun performs. THAT is why such a Law is inane, and utlimately fails.
Any semi-automatic gun can be made to cosemetically look like a military gun, but it is not an automatic weapon just because it is cosmetically modified. So "assault style weapons" is a useless term that just further clouds the discussion.
bob balmer
10:30 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
It would appear that you did not read my post. I used the term military style weapons. I guess the point I was trying to make that this is not a liberal vs conservative issue as some would make it.
11:14 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Bob, I read your post, and I quote: "assault style weapons with high capacity clips have no place in civillian hands"
While I think you could logically and factually argue against high-capacity clips (although that argument is weak at best), there is no factual or logical argument pertaining to "assault style weapons", simply because the function of a cosmetically altered semi-automatic weapon is EXACTLY the same as the standard looking, unaltered gun that is not "assault style".
1:33 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
1. On the same day as the Sandy Hook school shooting - a madman in China went into an elementary school and stabbed and cut 22 children. in China you have no gun rights, but this did not stop a person who wanted to inflict harm.
2. In the Aurora, CO theater shooting - the shooter did not choose the largest theater, or the only one showing Batman, or the closest one to his home. He choose that particular theater because Colorado has a concealed carry law, btu it is up to a business owner of he wants to ban guns in his establishment. This particular theater was the only one in the area that banned guns. The shooter choose the theater in Aurora because he knew he would not face armed resistance to his killing spree.
2:36 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Thanks to all of the Patchers for the usual entertainment!
Aluminum Foil Helmets For All!!
3:06 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Its a shame you have nothing adult to add to the conversation.
Oh well...
8:20 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
If there was an adult conversation going on here, I'd be concerned.
However, all I'm reading is the delusional ramblings from the far right and far left fringes of our community.
Both of these fringe elements are bullheaded and entertaining.
9:51 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Then why not contribute something meaningful, and pull the quality level up???
10:14 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
No thanks Ernie. Arguing with either side in this debate would be as useful as arguing with a park bench.
It's the same argument that has been going on my entire life. Massive changes need to be made.
Folks on the left have to accept that the 2nd Amendment isn't going away.
Folks on the right need to realize that changes are coming and if they want to be included in the changes then they have to abandon the rhetoric of the past.
10:46 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
C'mon Mike!!!!
You state "masive changes need to be made"....well, dazzle us with your insights.
What are those specifice massive changes that need to be made. If they are massive, you must have some fairly specific ideas in mind.
10:55 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Unlike the majority of folks in this thread I have no problem letting the pros handle this issue.
Vice President Biden assembled a lot of learned folks to discuss the issue and propose action.
I'll wait to see what comes of that before I armchair quarterback.
10:56 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
LOL Mike!!!
So much for your "massive changes" that need to be made?
Pros?? You consider the Legislature to be Pros??? LOL again.
11:06 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Of course they're professionals! You do know that there were supporters of the 2nd Amendment at these meetings, right?
You do know that the overwhelming majority of folks invited to those meetings are much more succesful and intelligent than you.
Let the adults work this out and then you can argue afterwards.
And stop saying that I'm being silly! I've avoided making fun of your name, you have to give credit where credit is due.
11:09 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
You are some piece of work. You think it is appropriate for Congress to take action, and then we all get to debate it after the fact...or at least that is what your posts seem to indicate.
In America, it doesn't work that way, or at least it is not supposed to work that way. We are founded in public debate of issues and Representatives of the people then formulating laws in response to that public debate. And yet, you think the debate is supposed to wait until after the legislative action.
Like I said, you are a peice of work.
11:15 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Ernie - I'm letting the industry and government formulate a plan.
Are you with me so far?
And then...We can discuss their proposed plan.
Still with me?
And this all happens before legislation is proposed.
I've attached a handy Schoolhouse Rock link to show how a bill becomes a law. The process can be a bit complicated so you may want to watch the clip a few times.
11:18 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
In other words, your thoughts on the "massive changes that are needed" doesn't really exist.
Thanks for the input.
Jon Wain
2:44 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
I will stop my reading at James Dale Barringtons first post.You sir I could sit with and have a great conversation with. YOU are most fair.Today the morning news said the NRA ( cult ) has enough votes in congress to over ride any gun law changes.WTF So the officials we elect are what PUPPETS on the NRA strings.Guns are a symbol of the last say.GOD like. Sign at my house says we don't call 991. What you carry on your hip in your own house?You take showers with your symbol near.20 children died because your freedoms allowed it to happen . Thank god these mentally challened suspects haven,t figured it out yet how to kill in larger numbers.And i'm not talkin guns.
3:38 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Your quote: "20 children died because your freedoms allowed it to happen"
Your words are a fine illustration of why this debate always seems to degenerate in to name calling, ridicule, and other such childish drek.
Thanks for your input.
2:00 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
500 homicides in Chicago in 2012- strictest gun laws in the country....... I see no one has responded to this.... The truth hurts doesn't it ????? Forget Gold and Silver- buy Brass and Lead!!!
7:26 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
In Japan it's very difficult to buy a gun. They have virtually no gun violence and, despite violent movies and video games being very popular, they have a much less violent society than we do.
In Australia, they passed a strict assault weapon ban in 1996 after a mass shooting there. They also bought up the assault weapons that people owned. They haven't had a mass shooting since.
There are lots of truths out there Jim, not just the anectodal ones that you choose to pick out.
2:35 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - THOMAS JEFFERSON
2:40 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
John Wain, I think you need to take your medication - your post makes no sense !!!
NRA is a CULT?? but sign at your house says we don't call 911??? Take some more meds and make sure you answer the questions about mental health truthfully if you attempt to purchase a firearm !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
proud American
9:17 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
the majority of gun owners are not crazy people we are law biding citizens.
1. I don't have a gun to kill people I have a gun to keep from being killed
2.I don't have a gun because I am evil it is because I have seen the evil in the world
3. I don't have a gun because I feel inadequate because thugs breaking into my house with weapons I am inadequate
4. I don't have a gun because I am paranoid I have a gun because their are real threats in this world.
5. I don't have a gun because I love it, I have one because I love life and the people who make it meaningful for me..
Finally I am responsible for my home and my family even a security system is only good if a police officer is sitting in your driveway. I know people with security systems and it took at the minimum of 20 minutes for an officer to arrive and in some cases more. We will always have evil in this world if not people then nations who either want what you have or hate your way of life and want us to be destroyed. The world will never be sunshine and roses with everyone holding hands and loving each other.
10:18 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
And you can accomplish all of your goals with a Mossberg 500 shotgun.
proud American
10:31 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
you are very right Mike and I also have a shotgun because I hunt. But this is America the last time I look and we base our country on freedom of choice not what the government picks for us. They can't even find the AUTOMATIC weapons they put in the hand of drug lords and gang member and they want to go after the law biding citizens of this country. It is not just automatic weapons they are going after it is also semi automatic and gun clips that will be the first step and when the next mental patients uses something else the will take go after another type of weapon. The government tells us what to eat ,how to raise our children ,now how to protect them. I don't need the government to tell me how to raise and protect my family I am responsible enough to do that myself.
10:38 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
It's time to abolish all laws concerning driving, marijuana, abortion, switchblade knives, cold/allergy medicine, building codes, bongs, clothing, pornography and taxation.
I want complete unadulterated freedom. I want to pursue happiness.
10:40 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Thank you for pulling his attempts at adult conversation down in to the childish gutter.
10:46 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Why do you think that your opinion matters more than mine?
If people want unlimited freedom for firearsm then we should have the same thing for everything else.
I'm submitting my explanation to Ernie for his approval. Fingers crossed!!
10:49 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The topic of this Article and Comments is guns. Not all the rest of your usless list.
Above you stated that "massive changes need to be made". I have to asssume that is in regards to guns in some fashion, so why don't you put away the useless diversions in to other topics and dazzle us with your wisdom on what these specific massive changes that you have deemed necessary????????????
10:50 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
And what about our 21st Amendment rights?!? The government cannot curtail our rights so everyone should have a drink.
Children should have a drink!
Teenagers should have a drink!
It is their Constitutional right and the PLCB is trying to overpower their guaranteed rights!
There are 27 amendments to the US Constitution. Shouldn't all rights be recognized by all?
10:52 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I understand you now. You have nothing to offer on the gun topic other that nonsense.
11:01 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Dearest Ernie
In my thread I was using a a form of analogy, a tool I picked up in an English class sometime in the early 1980's
Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process.
I was discussing freedoms, rights and responsibilities in relation to the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.
I'm sorry if you had trouble with that.
I am desperately trying to dazzle you as much as I can.
Next time, I'll just post a link to a Fox News article and type incoherently while blindfolded.
Would that satisfy some of your needs?
11:04 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
You dance very well. It seems to be a strong point of young people.
If you want to actually comment on the Gun Debate that is the topic of this thread, and perhaps enlighten the Board on your "massive changes" that need to be made in regards to the Gun Issue, feel free. I am sure that with all of your English education, you will do a fine job of explaining what is on your mind.
Somehow, I doubt you will actually do that. Your posts indicate that you thrive on cute rhetoric, and meaningless drivel. If you actually make an attempt to use facts, data or logic, you might do better...
11:11 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
You go first. Enlighten us with your ideas. I'll follow up.
And thanks for calling me a young person! You're a real gem!
11:14 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Gee, the old you go first dance. What a surprise.
OK Mike, I think we have all the Gun Laws in place right now that we will ever need in America. I agree with the Laws as they stand today.
Now, your next predicitable dance step is to try to tear down my position, while completely ignoring your statement "massive changes are needed"...
Go ahead and dazzle me with your steps Mike.
11:54 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I believe that the current gun laws aren't working. Neither side of this issue are happy with the status quo.
There are way too many laws on the books (local, state and federal) regarding this issue. They often contradict each other or were crafted poorly by bribed legislators
I think the federal government needs to sit down with industry, citizens and legislators to find the common path. Once that is established, strong Federal legislation needs to be framed and endorsed by all sides.
That legislation may include many things which, at this time, we just don't know.
Personally, I'd love to see high capacity magazines to be placed into the same category as switchblade knives. You cannot easily buy them and if you're caught with one you will most likely get into trouble. Will you be thrown into jail for 20 years? Probably not. Probably just end up paying a fine.
This problem needs to be solved culturally more than anything else.
Guns are tools and the folks who are terrified of them AND the folks that fetishize them are both wrong.
10:56 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
2011 Statistics:
323 Deaths by Semi Automatic weapons
496 Deaths by being beat to death with a hammer or other similar object
650 Stabbed to death
12,000 killed by drunk drivers
195,000 Deaths from Medical Malpractice.
SO ----You are six hundred times more likely to DIE by using your Obamacare than by a semi-automatic weapon!! Soo feeling sick yet ????
11:56 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Mike, Sorry you feel sick - sometimes cold hard facts will do that to you. Just stick your head back up into your _ _ _ or in the sand and you will feel better....
The figures on the deaths are from The FBI . One correction the 323 is all rifles, not just semi-automatics.
1:19 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
"195,000 Deaths from Medical Malpractice.
SO ----You are six hundred times more likely to DIE by using your Obamacare than by a semi-automatic weapon!! Soo feeling sick yet ????" Jim
"Obamacare"? Which insurance plan would that have been in 2011 exactly? And how many of those who died from medical malpractice that year had that particular plan you name? Yes, there are some sickening things written here.
proud American
11:12 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Right on the nose Jim and another thing I have notice when a person has nothing to back their beliefs they try to appear more intelligent then you or dance around the subject to the point where they appear dizzy
11:15 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I am having quite the Dance with Mike right now. He has a lot of rhetoric, but not much else in his arsenal so far. Oh well.
12:06 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
proud American
I've made my opinions known. And *gasp* they're slightly different than your opinions.
And.... I'm a gun owning veteran.
And... from the way you write and spell there are a lot of people on this forum that are more intelligent than you. And they're probably better dancers than you.
proud American
11:21 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Mike gun owners are obeying the law we go thru a background check, registor our guns when we buy them , go thru a waiting period, if we get a license to carry we go thru another background check. Just because you have a different opinion shouldn't fringe upon my rights and you can pass law after law and criminals will always have weapon to harm law biding citizen if they can't protect themselves. Read my early post and look what happen to countries that slowly passed gun control. When the constitution was written this group of people was already aware of what could happen when a government gets so big you no longer are a citizen you are a subject not living under a set of rules but being under control by a set of rules by power hungry leaders
proud American
11:28 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Mike you must be joking put this issue in the hands of pros the same people who put automatic weapons in the hands of drug lords who use them to kill our border agents and hundreds in Mexico.And then can't even be honest about Fast and Furious and then take the blame for their own stupidity.
11:29 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
And you won't know what's in the Bill until you sign it and have a chance to read it....
12:00 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
proud American - Actually I'm attempting to take politics out of this and you're ramming it right back in.
The current administration did send guns to Mexican druglords.
Should the folks from the Reagan administration who sold guns to the Iranians be asked to craft this legislation?
12:02 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Ernie - The proposed legislation will be known publically long before a bill is even presented to Congress.
proud American
12:18 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Vice President and his hand picked panel is taking government out of it. I didn't bring up Fast and Furious because of a political reason just because it has happen recently and if was a republican problem I would be just as hard on them.
1:03 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I do NOT share you faith that the public would know the Legislation long before a Bill is presented to Congress. I submit the recent "ObamaCare" Bill as prime evidence.
proud American
11:46 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
has anyone else noticed the people such as stars or government people who want guns banned or laws so strict that the law biding citizens are denied their right have people with guns protecting them and their homes. The same people who want to make it harder for the everday citizens to do the same thing. And the reason this government is passing laws without reading them is because the law can not stand on its own merit and when the everyday citizen finally get hit by the full affect of this unread law it is to late. Flash back tax the rich every working day middle class pay check is feeling that law. Obama Care now we all know how government is paying for that program the average citizens health care is already going up as well as items not taxed before are now taxed such as medical equipment.
11:56 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Bartender - This gun owning veteran would like to buy proud American a paragraph. It's on me.
proud American
2:42 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Mike first of all thank you for your service to our country if what you have stated is true.. Second when you assault people personally who you disagree with speaks louder that words.
3:23 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Um.....Thanks proud American? (if indeed you are an American?)
What a back handed compliment! "...if what you have stated is true."
proud American
4:10 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Mike the "thank you for your service" was meant because I am a very proud American and feel that every servicemen and women should always be thanked for their service. Because we disagree about a subject will not change that.
8:18 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
proud American - Then why did you add ".....if what you have stated is true..."?
proud American
9:16 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Mike that was a bad choice of words and I will apologize. But just like you stated "if you are an American" and that you insult a person's intelligence that you don't even know. sometimes a debate will get a little out of hand and words are written to quickly.
11:57 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Mike, Sorry you feel sick - sometimes cold hard facts will do that to you. Just stick your head back up into your _ _ _ or in the sand and you will feel better....
The figures on the deaths are from The FBI . One correction the 323 is all rifles, not just semi-automatics.
12:10 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Jim - You're selecting the numbers that you personally like. We could bring in someone from the other side of the argument who could present just as many numbers to prove you wrong.
I'm in the middle, watching a whole lot of pointless numbers with not much forward movement on the issue.
Did you know that you can eat 25,000 big macs and not die! Therefore, big macs are good for you and promote healthy living!
12:15 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Here's a question for all -
Let's say the Federal government proposes something like you'll need to undergo a Federal background check and you're not allowed to own high capacity magazine
How do you make the leap from "filling out a few more forms and not owning high capacity magazines" to they're going to kick down my door and take my ballistic babies!!
It seems like a HUUUUGGGGEEEE leap from one to the other.
1:00 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I'm not sure anyone is taking that leap...
As to a Federal Background Check, that seems fairly useless, unless all State Crimes are recorded with the Feds. If that is the case, the current States that use Background Checks, including PA already meet that requirement. So, I guess I could care less about a Federal background check, except for the additional tax dollars to establish and run such a thing.
High capacity magazines were made illegal with the recently expired Assault Weapons Ban Law. Personally, I did not have a problem with the ban of high-capacity clips. I do have a problem with understanding how that would impact the MILLIONS of high-capacity clips out in the public right now. If the Government holds some sort of "buy back" plan, they will recover a miniscule percentage of them. If they attempt to confiscate them, all sorts of problems arise. And, in any scenario, criminals will keep their high-capacity magazines.
At one point in time, the Gun Law Debate was squarely aimed at trying to prevent public mass killings and such. However, I have yet to see anyone bring up any sort of potential legislation that would have ANY affect on that type of crime.
1:12 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The Federal Background Check, as it currently stands, is ineffective.
That's why it all needs to be torn down and rebuilt to make effective federal legislation that is at least acceptable to all sides.
And the bans in the remarkably ineffective Assault Weapons Ban Law was more toothless than a person who posts to Patch.
Any new laws need to be iron-clad. Eliminate all of the various loopholes and grandfathering to make it a level playing field.
1:15 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Do you think the PA InstaCheck System is ineffective? Why?
The high-capacity magazine bans in the past Law, were just that, bans on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines. What do you find "toothless" in that Law?? Isn't that what you stated you wanted a new Law to contain?
1:23 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
And there are way too many people making that leap.
James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response is one and Joshua Boston is another.
1:25 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Ernie - The fact that you could still buy and possess a high capacity magazine was the reason that the law was pointless.
It's like making marijuana illegal to grow or sell but you could smoke it all day in front of a cop.
1:29 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Under the Law, you could not buy a high-capacity magazine. There were strict limits on the number of rounds allowed.
Again, if a new Law makes them illegal to buy and manufacture once again, what is your postion on the millions of units already in the public hands?
1:33 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Ernie - I personally saw high capacity magazines for sale at gun shows during the "assault weapons ban" period.
I also saw them in the hands of gun owners during that period of time.
It was a flabby definition of illegal.
1:35 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
OK, so lets say a new Law strictly forbids the possession of high-capacity magazines.
What are your thoughts on how to deal with the millions already in the hands of the public?
1:36 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
As far as existing high capacity magazines out there?
Same as switchblades and pot, I'm sure that they're out there as well but you'll get into trouble if you're seen with them.
The same idea should be applied to high capacity magazines.
When someone pays enough fines and get hassled enough they may think twice before taking it out and about.
1:41 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I think I could live with that type of Law, but I am still concerned that said Law would have absolutely no impact on reducing the number of violent multi-victim crimes that has gernerated this entire discussion.
So, I have to ask, what is the real purpose of such a Law? The purpose obviously cannot be to eliminate the high-capacity magazines, millions exist in public hands. The purpose obviously cannot be to prevent a killer from using a high-capacity magazine because he would then be committing a crime, he is already committing a worse crime. If the purpose of the Law was to eventually lead to confiscation of high-capacity magazines, then criminals most certainly would not be turning over their magazines to the gov't.
So, I still can't see what purpose such a Law serves???
1:46 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Every little bit counts. I've had to change magazines on an M16 in a stressful situation. It's not easy.
Now, let's transfer this to the civilian world. If someone has to change out magazines or switch weapons then the chances of them being disarmed are much greater.
If that means that just one life is saved, then it's worth it to make high capacity clips illegal.
You'll still be able to fire that weapon, it just might not be as easy to throw as much lead as previously.
1:48 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I'm just not sure that is a reasonable scenario.
In any of the recent mass shootings, there was certainly no one who was going to attack the shooter just because he was in the middle of reloading a small clip instead of a big one. Once the first shot was fired, I would just about guarantee no one was looking for anything but an exit.
2:03 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The numbers support it. The Aurora CO shooter fired 209 rounds from his rifle and 15 rounds from his handgun.
Do you think someone would've been able to stop him if he had to change clips in his rifle?
He had a 100 round magazine that he purchased for his rifle
Imagine if he had been only able to buy a 10 round clip instead.
Do you think he would've been able to shoot 70 people without someone stopping him while he changed clips?
Sadly, we'll never know the answer.
An across the board ban on sale or possession of high capacity magazines could lives.
9:00 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
No Mike, a smaller clip would not have made a bit of difference in the two recent cases, and the reason is quite simple...there was no one there who was going to try to physcically assault the shooter in an attempt to stop him.
Obviously the school had no one in the room to do it, and the theater was a "Gun Free Zone" so no one was going to shoot back at the shooter.
You need to be realistic. Stating that "we will never know" if someone would have stopped the shooter while he changed clips is not being realistic in the two recent cases.
9:35 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Ernie - That is completely absurd. The movie theater was filled with people who could've taken the 10 second opportunity to physically stop the shooter.
Never underestimate the will to live.
You're the one not being realistic.
Are you telling me that if I point a gun at you AND you're unarmed that you wouldn't do everything to save your life when I change clips or change weapons?!?
If given the chance people will do that. That is why high capacity magazines need to be removed from the marketplace in ways that I've already described several times.
10:00 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Sorry Mike, but I cannot accept your theory.
If there was guy in front of a theater with body armor, mask and goggles on firing a semi-automatic weapon in to the crowd, I do NOT believe for one second that there would be some unarmed volunteer running to the front to stop him during a clip change. Sorry, but that sort of thing just does not fit the standard model of reality.
10:09 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Ernie - Then perhaps you live in a separate reality from the rest of us.
To say, with absolute certainty, that no one would defend themselves to the end is absurd.
If you feel that you would lay there and die, then you're definitely a different kind of person than I am.
I'd rather die on my feet, defending myself and others, if given even the slightest microsecond of opportunity.
10:26 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Congratulations Mike.
And as I make my way to the nearest exit, I will take a look back and watch you take on in the chest and go down.
10:39 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Sorry Mike,
Just trying to be realistic since you think I am somehow not so....
Jon Wain
12:18 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
keeing your guns to protect your self from the government is a comic belief. Maybe when the government had the same musket you had it could be thought of as apples and apples. You can sleep with your gun collection but try and sort this out, the government has really big toys. I think you know what i'm talkin about. You'll never win that one
1:02 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I don't think the point of that position is that you could win a war as an individual against the government. I believe the point is that in America, you can at least try.
Keith L
1:07 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Jon, the gun slinging cowboys in this country really do believe that they can defend themselves from the inevitable government attack with their ar-15's and semi-auto shotguns. They truly believe they will be effective against Predator drones, M1 Abrams, Tomahawk missiles, satellite surveillance and highly training US soldiers who are brainwashed into attacking the very people they signed up to defend.
You can't argue the point with these people. It's like trying to use reasoning and logic to convince a grizzly bear that it should not maul you to death and eat you.
1:11 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
It is easy to win the argument with "those people" when you assign to them what they believe.
1:21 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
"Since late 1998, when federal law began mandating checks for prospective gun buyers, the only other month that exceeded the 2 million mark was November 2012 — when Obama won a second term, the Star reports."
This language is such terrible partisan bias, only thing worse is the title of the piece.
Hey, I hear Twinkies sold out around the time of President Obama's re-election, too, guess you'd find a connection there. OMG, it's the President's fault there's no Twinkies (gag) left!
proud American
2:54 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Ne12Ukid we all know the blame game is President Obama's game he has blame all the world progams on everyone except himself. And tomorrow when he throws out his plan for law biding gun owners I heard it will be turned into a photo op, look what I'm doingthis for the children , because he is going to have children around him who he says wrote letters after the school incident. If this is true shame on him he should be standing their as president of the greatest country in the world and state his plan as a leader if he feels it so good. No that is not the plan if people critize it he and others will state how can you be so heartless how can you do this to those young children we want to protect them.
5:25 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
proudAmerican says: "Ne12Ukid we all know..."
No, not WE ALL KNOW, it's your opinion. You cannot speak for everyone else.
proud American
5:40 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Sorry NE12Ukid I should have said people who have paid attention the last for years to the blame game.
proud American
3:08 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
2:03 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The numbers support it. The Aurora CO shooter fired 209 rounds from his rifle and 15 rounds from his handgun.
Do you think someone would've been able to stop him if he had to change clips in his rifle?
He had a 100 round magazine that he purchased for his rifle
Imagine if he had been only able to buy a 10 round clip instead.
Do you think he would've been able to shoot 70 people without someone stopping him while he changed clips?
Sadly, we'll never know the answer
maybe you don't know the answer and if someone practices enough this is the answer
3:21 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Practice and talent. That fast change clip guy and others who share his skills are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population.
Definitely not the norm
9:03 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The only scenario where clip change time makes any difference at all is if there is either someone shooting back at the shooter, or an unarmed person willing and able to assault a person who has just been firing off shots in the room.
Niether of those scenarios applies to the recent shootings, and the second scenario is not likely to happen in even a small fraction of a fraction of shootings.
9:30 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Ernie - Of course changing clips would've changed the situation, to say otherwise is insincere.
We don't know what would've happened but I can tell you that if my life was on the line and someone was changing clips I would do everything to stop them.
Those few moments between going dry and putting in a fresh clip can be an eternity.
10:02 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
As I said above Mike, I cannot accept your theory as reality.
And, the point you seem to want to ignore, is if we make high-capacity clips illegal, they still exist in the millions, and they will still be used in crimes by criminals.
10:06 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Ernie - You say with 100% certainty that smaller clips wouldn't have change a single thing in any of the recent shootings?
You should take your mystical powers and visit the horse track sometime. You'd end up rich!
proud American
4:10 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
no it is not the norm but do you know how many out their can do this including military personal who may have mental issues. So what does it come back to mental health, pass all the gun laws in the world will not change anything a mentally ill person will use anything they can get their hands on knives, bombs, machetes, bats, pipes etc. These people need to be treated and in hospitals where they are protected as well as the public they can't help it mental health is a real issue and when they set their mind on doing harm it will happen. In this school shooting if that young man was in a hospital being treated not playing violent video games with what looked like unsecure weapons this also wouldn't have happened. If his mother had survived I feel she should have held some of the responsibility for being irresponsible. But should all gun owners who are doing all the right things have to pay the price for someones who didn't do the right thing. Should a person who likes a beer occasionally be restricted because of an irresponsible person who drinks and drives and kills a car load of people. Gun control in any form will not make this the perfect world. Their are all kinds of issues but what is the first thing that happens lets pass more laws against guns
Mark A.
8:52 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Man, use paragraphs, seriously. But anyway, nobody is expecting a perfect world, just an improved one. Just like reducing the alcohol limits reduces drunk driving, removing certain firearms from future circulation will help the rampage problem. What you zero-tolerance guys don't understand is that you are vastly outnumbered by people who are not gun lovers. We are the majority and are doing something about a problem you refuse to think about. This is happening whether you like it or not, so you'd better figure out a way to compromise or you're going to lose even more in the long run.
9:47 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Quoting: "... removing certain firearms from future circulation will help the rampage problem ...."
Surely you jest with a statement like this!!! All the discussion about new controls, the Biden Commission, discussions at state levels, etc., ignore the 300M guns already in existence, some ready for use in gun violence.
I saw a state governor proposing fingerprinting at gun registration. Really???? This political rhetoric might make a news headline, but does a fingerprint addition going to help eliminate, or even minimize, gun violence in some of the urban battlegrounds? Consider all the gun-related incidence in Pittsburgh since New Years. If fingerprinting would have been implemented a year ago, would these incidents happened? How many of these incidents required large-capacity magazines? Or, multiple magazines?
If the problem is so great in Jan 2013, why wasn't it a problem in Oct 2012? Gun violence was as rampant then as now.
I am astounded at the oxygen being consumed in the national conversation on this matter. It tells us how easily and quickly our focus can get derailed. While "Rome burns," and other matters that have a time schedule go wanting, and the chatter gets the headlines. Worrying about magazine sizes, assault style weapons vs. assault weapons (semantics), amount of ammo that can be bought, and all such other nonsense will make no difference in 2013, 2014, or 2024 with regard to gun violence.
James Dale Barrington
8:54 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
I disagree, Roger. I think it can...
9:07 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
In what ways do you think more laws would help? What sorts of Laws? How would they help?
3:55 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
James, thank you for your length, insightful, well thought-out response on how the proposed changes will help. I'm sure the victim of the next store robbery, the victim of the next domestic gun shooting, the next target for drive-by shootings, will agree with your response. They have the most to loose.
James Dale Barrington
4:59 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Ernie -- Roger -- Keith said all that needs to be said.
proud American
9:33 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
We all have sides in this debate and like it or not the average gun onwer has done all the thing that the law has asked of us. But if the executive privilege is used to pass anyone of the laws that is forcing a law on people who are not breaking the law. If they feel that this law is what the nation wants then it should go thru the process of the senate and the house. This would be an abuse of what the executive privilege was meant for.
Sue T
10:53 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Whether you agree with what is done under Executive Privilege or not today, the question really is does it meet the criteria of the President's power under Ex. Priv. If it does not, those actions should be fought because it will set precedent for how this power is used by other presidents in the future....and you may not agree next time.
Keith L
12:15 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Exec Privy, although not directly referenced in the constitution, in the past has always been supported by several constitutional articles and interpretations thereof. Yes, sometimes it has been viewed as controversial, but that is usually only by those who disagree with the outcome anyway. This is the same constitution that many 'pro-gun' supports are aggressively promoting as an excuse for no more government action on the gun violence problems that most agree exist in this country and culture.
This double standard on the role of the constitution in this debate severely hurts the credibility and validity of the pro-gun movement. You can't just pick and choose the exact governing functions that you want to suit yourself and then complain about the rest.
However proud American, I will agree with you on your statement about the average gun owner having complied with current laws. But that is not the problem and is not what the debate is about. The problem is the current laws do not do enough to help ensure that guns do not get into the wrong hands or are used for the wrong purpose. Personally, I don't care if you own an AR or an AK, but I do care about how you are allowed to use it, store it, give access to other to use it, and the repercussions for breaking the laws with it.
3:12 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The office of the presidency is in the executive branch of government, which is to EXECUTE THE LAW. Within the U.S. Constitution, the responsibilities of the President are specified. Executive orders are issued under the 'executive powers' clause: "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. " But still... new laws cannot be created by the President. It defeats the point of having a separation of powers.
In my opinion none of the 23 executive orders are blatantly legislative, but some sure do tow the line. These are particularly worrisome to me:
- Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
- Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
- Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
The above set the stage for an arbitrarily determined health-related Federal restriction on gun ownership with coerced cooperation from the States. And 'dangerous' is ill-defined.
Ironically, the military vets that 'keep us free' could easily lose the very rights they sacrifice their lives for. 20% --300,000-- of the soldiers who have been deployed in the past 6 years have PTSD. 100% of all soldiers are trained to kill-- sounds pretty 'dangerous' to me.
6:08 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Just to correct the posts, Executive Privilege is something completely different from Executive Orders (google before making derogatory comments about me, they are completely different).
proud American
1:48 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Keith I understand your argument but this is only going to make it harder for citizens who follow the law. Which part of this law will get the gang bangers, home grown terrorist, drug peddlers, or illegals bringing them into the country etc. to step up and registor their guns and get a back ground check they will always have illegal guns. Every country that had the intent thru history to take control of their citizens guns have done it little by little. Slowly they got people who where honest to admit they had guns , back ground checks gets you on another list, we now have our doctors asking about our gun owner ship another list , soldiers leaving the military are asked about gun ownership another list, the UN wants a universal gun law and so forth. We now have a president using executive privilege right and left to get what he wants because he knows a lot of his agenda wouldn't even be passed by members in his own party. Just do a little history research this is how it all starts may not happen tomorrow but as long as progress thinking leaders have control it while happen. The only way it will be stopped if we say enough is enough you have taken to many of our freedoms and rights away. Call me crazy if you want but history has proven me right many times if we ignore what has happen in our passed it will be repeated.
bob balmer
4:02 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
You were right proud American, He shamelessly used those kids for a photo op.
4:06 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
OK, now that we have news of 23 new EO, some of which don't have much meat on the bone yet. I see the estimated cost is $500M.
More free stuff. To what end? Which of the EOs will help with the gun violence on E Carson St last Saturday night? Which of the EOs will help with the gun violence against an officer, the shooter's trial ended earlier this week? Which of the 23 EOs will take the 300M guns now in circulation away from crazed people intent on shooting a fellow worker, a spouse who takes revenge on a jealous lover, a 23 year old druggie who needs money for his habit and robs the local convenience store?
How can the WH explain the exploitation of the children used as a backdrop today, an exercise to advance a political agenda? And, I think he even chastised the media for sensationalizing the recent gun-violence. Whew! Calling the kettle back, much? "Strike while the iron is hot, ..." or as the saying goes. How many times can the WH use the phrase, "stop gun violence," when everybody knows EO or congressional action will have no immediate impact, and "stopping" is an inclusive term?
It is interesting to see the investing community dismissed the entire thing -- didn't move the meter at all. They all know the deficit problem looms much larger, a subject that needs attention (known by everybody). They await action on spending reduction, another subject that needs attention. Meanwhile, ... press conferences ...
4:48 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Roger, I couldn't agree more, but there will be "hell to pay" on these boards for any of those statements. First, a lot of people posting have little to no respect (or knowledge of, for that matter) for the Constitution, so anything that isn't fervently "anti-gun" will trigger plenty of backlash (and misguided and opinionated comments). Second, a lot of those same posters are stanch Obama supporters, and will refuse to see the hypocrisy in his statements and actions today, including the kids that were used as props. And lastly, I have read plenty of posts on this site and it seems that a lot of people are blatantly in denial about the deficit (those who say it's all a "conspiracy", how they come to that conclusion is beyond rational thinking). But kudos to you for your post.
proud American
5:30 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
We have politicians that just write bills with out any thought New York passed a new gun law . The police guns are now illegal the state politician who I'm not sure of the name that was asked about this said we need to clarify that. A gun shop had two weapons identical side by side one was illegal know why, it had a pistol grip not more power or a clip holding more than seven shells a pistol grip made it more dangerous. New York you now have one year to registor all your guns another list for the legal gun owners name to be on because I just don't see the gang banger or drug pusher lining up to registor their guns. We are on a slippery slope or civil war in this country because states are already talking about not making law biding citizens yesterday a criminal tomorrow.
6:25 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT.......December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry's death squad, were deemed "National Heroes" and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.
We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized "Official Government Explanation". And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the murder of 297 people.
6:26 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, "hunting" was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and "target shooting" was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on "target shooting". The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.
As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or "liberty". Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of "for your safety" or "for protection". The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for "safety". Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked.
6:28 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of "our safety".
Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate "evil" into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.
Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is "evil" and "malevolence" most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? "Scapegoats" and "enemies" within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer "We were disarmed before it happened". Ask any Jew what Hitler's first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation
6:29 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
- confiscation of firearms from the people.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.
9:18 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Can the author at least admit that the partisan title copied from the Kansas right wing rag is as biased as the set up of the "poll" questions?
Andy Plese
10:12 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I own an AR-15. Not an "assault weapon" Look up the definition of "assault rifle" and you will realize that very few civilians in this country own an actual assault rifle. About the "high capacity clips"- My AR-15 came with a 30 round MAGAZINE from the manufacturer when I purchased it. Which would make it a Standard capacity magazine.
11:32 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
You've got to put away any sort of logical, or fact-based thinking to participate in this discussion.
The entire debate is based on "feel good" crap, that has ZERO impact on the so-called target of the efforts: Preventing mass shooting tragedies.
I challenge any and all participants to explain how any of the proposed "laws" will impact any criminial's ability to carry out the EXACT SAME shootings that have happened recently.
Any takers????
12:32 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
They won't simply because criminals don't follow the law...
12:39 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
A "well regulated militia" requires regulations.
Get in a time machine and blame James Madison. He's the one that wrote it that way.
1:44 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ernie, I posed the same question yesterday, "...how will ... ?" Nobody answered. I am doubting anybody will try to answer, because they know ....
Of all the proposals advanced yesterday, I was struck by the one asking for money to the CDC to study the reasons for gun violence. Really? Study the reasons for gun violence...? Say what?
Perhaps somebody at the WH attended a recent discussion on the origins of evil. They thought throwing some money toward the question, an answer would be forthcoming. What sense does anybody else make of this request, other than funneling more money to prop up more government sponsored programs? For those supporting this proposal, tell us the expectations of such a study? Help us out here, please. Thank you.
1:56 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
The question will not be answered here or anywhere else for several reasons. One, it is a very difficult question, and two the answer is unsatisfying.
No Law of any sort will prevent tragedies such as the two recent mass shootings. That is a simple statement of fact, but that is a terrible fact to many people, and just not acceptable. As if "acceptability" of reality can be changed just by passing useless and meaningless Laws. But, for some reason a large part of the American Population will watch politicians on the TV and cheer them for "doing something" about the terrible problem of mass shootings. Forget completely that they have done ABSOLUTELY nothing to prevent such occurrances, it just feels good at the time to hear them lie to you about it.
At some point in time, the American Public is going to have to come to grips with the causes of these shootings. There seem to be some primary root causes such as Mental Illness, Lack of Value of Human Life, and basic Evil just to name a few.
proud American
12:49 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
proud American
7:09 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
look at the history of gun control in different countries
1929 Soviet Union established gun control--1929-1953 approx 20million dissidents unable to defend themselves rounded up and killed.
1911 Turkey established gun control 1915-1917 1.5 million Armenians unable to defend themselves rounded up exterminated
1938 Germany established gun control 1939-1945 13 million Jews unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
1935 China established gun control 1948-1952 20 million political dissidents unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
1964 Guatemala established gun control 1964-198, 1100,000 Mayan Indians unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
1970 Uganda established gun control 1971-1979 300,000 Christians unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterrminated
1956 Cambodia established gun control 1975-1977 i million educated people unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
20th Century defendless people rounded up and exterminated because of gun control 56 million
With guns we are citizens without we are subjects not saying we are their yet but eveytime this issues is brought up we get a little closer to these facts don't you think terrorist would like to see more gun control in this country
12:53 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
So, I missed the part yesterday where the president said that they're taking away all of the guns.
I'm thinking that actually didn't happen and it won't happen.
1:33 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
So Mike, because the President hasn't completely stripped us of our Constitutional right, only part of it, we should accept it? Would you be fine with a "tweaking" of the first or fifth amendments? It's short-sighted attitudes like yours that are allowing our rights to be taken from us slowly (but surely). What a selfish and narrow-minded view that is to take. What if the President said that most of the first amendment is still valid, but passed an Executive Order stating that you couldn't say anything negative about the government? Would you still have the same narrow-minded opinion then? Or are you completely willing to give up your rights without thought? How shallow, self-serving and oblivious that comment is.
1:57 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
A "well regulated militia" requires regulations. He wants to apply regulations.
The rest is just Conservative Gun Fantasy.
If you're anxiously waiting for the movie Red Dawn to become real, you're going to have a very very very long wait.
Instead of making things up and trying to convince others that it isn't made up, why not focus on what can actually be accomplished.
proud American
2:44 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Never said he did Mike but every time they have another shooting they will chip away a little more. And DormontDude hit it right on the head well said.Look at the terrorist activity still going on in the world today hostages being held at at a gas plant as we speak maybe the president can ask them for more gun control or he can look for another movie to blame it on. What has he done about the ambassador and 3 other American haven't even hear anything in weeks can't even get the truth from his cabinet. Sure was quick to jump on a tragedy and pass laws to punish gun owners who are law biding citizens. It is very hard to trust a President that passes laws without reading them or late on a friday night now they want no debt limit so they can spend our children and grandchildrens future away. And I'm suppose to trust his decision without thinking there is not a motive. Where is your proof it won't happen?
Sue T
2:47 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
And there is another issue here. While I'll agree the problem the most important factor to consider is mental health, the president has, what, 4o r 5 items addressing ithis. Who will decide exactly what individuals names will be put in the data base and shared? What are the criteria used to decide who can and can not have a gun based on mental health? What about patient/doctor confidentially. The list opens up a huge area of individuals rights to privacy. These items need to be much better defined.
3:09 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
proud - You're seriously want me to prove that your imaginary gun grab hasn't happened?
How would anyone be able to prove that it all exists in your imagination?!?!
There is a better chance of a leprechaun riding a unicorn showing up at your door and asking you to turn in all of your guns then of what you're imagining.
Jon Wain
3:28 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
The coroner's work load would be really busy if someone starts shooting in a theater and all yins gun toters draw and fire in the direction of the shooter.ya you may hit him and countless others in the 360 circle. Don't even mention yins are responsible gun slingers. Whatch tv and listen to the young men and women who say there ready for any thing
3:34 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Is your post directed at anyone here in particular, or just a random rant?
3:37 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
What can "actually be accomplished," Mike, is that we can have our Constitutional rights stripped of us slowly because of attitudes like yours. "Conservative Gun Fantasy?" Really, man? How do you even know if I'm conservative or not? I don't even own a weapon. You sound foolish making statements like that. I am PRO CONSTITUTION. I'm not willing to give up a single one of my rights. A lot of blood has been shed for them, and I'm not as arrogant and flippant as you to turn this into a "conservative versus liberal" matter. Again, how does being pro constitution mean that I'm conservative? Are you saying that liberals can't want to keep their rights? And how about answering my questions? Would you be willing to give up "part" of your first amendment right? Or any right? Then why the second amendment? You don't have to agree with the second amendment, but don't try to take that right away from others. I really can't believe I have to say any of this. Are people so glib about their rights that they just don't care that they have them?
3:39 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Yes DD,
There is a VERY large population of Americans who are "glib" about their Rights, and willing to let Mama Government take care of all of their needs.
3:58 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Do you also fear elves?
What about sasquatches?
I heard on the radio that Aquaman will be taking away ALL of the guns in Allegheny County. Be sure to keep an eye out for a guy wearing green and orange!!
No one is taking away your guns except in your imagination. Period. End of story.
If you're so PRO CONSTITUTION then you won't mind some regulations being applied to the second amendment.
After all, regulations are REQUIRED as stated by the second amendment.
"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."
As far as I see, the President is applying regulations, as written by James Madison and approved by congress and the states.
Did you complain when George W Bush took away part of your First Amendment rights when he pushed through the Patriot Act?
And why do you assume that I'm a liberal? Is it because I'm writing lucidly?
4:04 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
So, there is nothing in between in your mind? Oh well.
4:27 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
You call that lucid? You're being far to flattering of yourself. I see you haven't answered any of my questions, and I also see that you have no idea whatsover how our government works or what the constitution means. Regulations being applied to the second amendment? It goes back to my originial question about have SOME of your first amendment rights taken away. You never answered that, but your last post shows what your answer would be. You are too busy "writing lucidly" to make any sense or have even the smallest concept of our constitutional rights. Applying regulations, as approved by Congress and the States? Do you mean the Bill of Rights that was ratified? I really don't understand your point there. You googled that James Madison was one of the main drafters of the Bill of Rights (yay, you got something about history right), but you must not have read the whole article or understood any of it. Well, you clearly didn't understand any of it, or you wouldn't make statements like "the President is applying regulations" to the constitution! What does that even mean? The President can't just "apply regulations" to amendments he doesn't agree with. A civics lesson is in order, Mike. Please get a library card and study. I'm delusional and paranoid for not wanting the President to dodge the Constituion? And yes, I complained LOUDLY about the Patriot Act. Answer the questions, Mike. I'm curious to see a REAL response, not the gibberish you posted. A real answer
4:47 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Civics lesson for DormontDude
"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."
3rd word in the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution is regulated.
It's right there, written by James Madison.
In order to regulate something you need *wait for it* regulations.
Regulations are rules or laws.
Why are you against regulations?
Why are you against the actual words in the second amendment?
I thought you were PRO CONSTITUTION?
Or are you only PRO about the words that you like?
Is there a different version of the US Constitution? Do you read a "King James" version?
4:47 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
And now to answer your questions, as you've demanded -
How does being pro constitution mean that I'm conservative?
-Because I said so.
Are you saying that liberals can't want to keep their rights?
-Liberals are more concerned with actual issues, not imaginary issues
And how about answering my questions?
-Relax! I'm answering them right now.
Would you be willing to give up "part" of your first amendment right?
-Every time I stop myself from screaming FIRE in a crowded theater I wince at the erosion of my 1st Amendment rights. I also fear the erosion of my 3rd Amendment rights, how do you know that there isn't a platoon of soldiers sleeping in your spare bedroom right now?
Then why the second amendment?
I don't feel that my second amendment rights are being infringed. Regulation is called for in the document!
4:56 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
LOL! A grammar lesson for Mike:
The word "regulated" applies to the noun "Militia" in that sentence, not to the word "Right".
But hey. you have proclaimed your superiority in knowledge of the English Language, so I guess you can change those rules too...
Sue T
5:47 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I wish there was a "Like" option. I'd be clicking for DormonDudes 4:27PM post.
4:42 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Nice dodge Mike, or perhaps just another of your infamous dance moves?
4:42 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Actually, Mike, I DO mind regulations being applied to ANY of the Bill of Rights. Do you understand what the Constitution is, Mike? What it means? Why would you even make that statement if you had even a cursory understanding of it? And one of the biggest Constitutional end-arounds that Bush is guilty of isn't taking away part of the first amendment, it's the fourth and fifth amendments that he stamped all over. When you're in the library reading about the Constitution, look up Patriot Act also. I was angry not just at Bush for that power grab, I was angry as Congress for passing that horrible bill (some of them admitted that they hadn't even read the whole thing). Again, you are the one turning this into Liberal vs. Conservative. I am pro constitution. You don't know what you are, but it certainly isn't knowledgable about American history.
proud American
4:45 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
DormontDude you are so right what has made this country so great is our Constitution.
4:49 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Our Constitution stands alone in the world as a Framework to build a Representative Republic upon. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.
What can be civily debated is just how much any given Congress can do to the Framework without actually going through the Amendment Process...and we have witnessed Presidents and Congress truly stretching the boundries of their Authority to change the Constitution without Amendment.
proud American
4:42 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Mike don't dodge the question by insults
your statement
12:53 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
So, I missed the part yesterday where the president said that they're taking away all of the guns.
I'm thinking that actually didn't happen and it won't happen
you stated it won't happen prove to us that it won't ever happen we have showed many examples that it does happen. Try no insult or labels just proof
proud American
5:54 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Mike waiting for you proof we gave you plenty of examples of where this could head and you have yet to give one that it won't ever happen
proud American
4:55 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Mike got one thing right it is more entertaining then tv and he is trying out for a spot on comedy central
Salvia 58
4:24 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
The poll question here is very leading in my opinion. I would prefer something more along the lines of: Did you purchase a gun(s) in the past 5 years ? If so for what purpose ? If for protection, from whom ? Criminals, foreign invaders, the government... ? Pick the one answer that best describes your reason.


text:
The place is a dump. Very OLD inside and out. Everything in the rooms looks like it came from a dumpster. They don't furnish anything. No towels, wash cloths, microwave, maid service, phones nothing. Nothing but the room itself. But the location is great and being right on the water is great and of course the price is good considering... More
- Also Known As:
- Summer Haven Hotel Monticello
- Summer Haven Hotel

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Quintana Flirts with No-No as White Sox Beat Red Sox
The Red Sox have come to town, and the White Sox got this series off to a good start after beating the Red Sox 6-4 Monday night. Jose Quintana faced off against Felix Doubront tonight, and the White Sox luckily came out on top. It was a low scoring affair, but Quintana had a spectacular performance. » Continue reading "Quintana Flirts with No-No as White Sox Beat Red Sox"


text:
We have just returned from this hotel (15/05/13). There was my wife and I plus our daughter, husband & two children aged 6 & 13. The hotel is very good and clean, rooms were cleaned to a bare minimum. The bed was very hard and we all had difficulty in sleeping, if your like a hard bed then it will... More
- Also Known As:
- Stella Palace Analipsi Village
- Stella Palace Hotel Analipsi Village, Crete, Greece
- Reservation Options:
- TripAdvisor is proud to partner with Booking.com, HotelsClick and Priceline so you can book your Stella Palace Hotel reservations with confidence. We help millions of travellers each month to find the perfect hotel for both holiday and business trips, always with the best discounts and special offers.


text:
Welcome, Guest!
We've saved a seat for you, why don't you join in?
Sign up | Log in
Number of Comments: 4084 Number of Comments on the Honor Roll: 23 Number of Videos: 0 Number of Photos: 23 Number of Reviews: 0 Description:
No Comments
Videos (0) - Upload
No Videos
Photos (23) - Upload
Click here to see all photos by Stoney
Reviews (0) - Upload
No Reviews
Private Notebook (26)
No Items


text:
New York Yankees Oyster Bay Meshback Adjustable Cap by '47 Brand
Item no: 12772264 Price: $20.99
AVAILABILITY: In stock, leaves warehouse in 1 - 2 full bus. days. - (Details)
Product Information
by '47 Brand
- Relaxed cap with embroidery, twill and felt applique
- Plaid screen printed pattern on front panals and features an airspray wash, creating a weathered vintage look


text:
Watch a video to find out.
Stay logged in
Go to Navigation Go to Content Go to Search
Top 1 index terms for artists
Refine highlights by selecting from the index terms below
Top 26 index terms for material or technique
See more index terms
Top 4 index terms for geographic locations
Top 1 index terms for era or date of art
Top 2 Index terms for location in the museum
Sword and scabbard
Date: ca. 7th century A.D.Accession Number: 65.28a, b
Textile fragment: walking ram with a neckband and fluttering ribbons
Date: ca. 7th century A.D.Accession Number: 1977.232
Bowl with wheel-cut facets
Date: ca. 6th–7th century A.D.Accession Number: 59.34