Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Here's the list of Obamas "gun control" initiatives.

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 16, 2013, 6:24 p.m. EST by Shayneh (-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

He's really on top of things isn't he. I'm just wondering about the statement he made - If we save one life it will be worth it".

Just wondering how that's going to be proven? I guess the perp will be interviewed to see if "banning semi automatic rifles" restricted him more or less when it came to killing someone.

1.Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2.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.

3.Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4.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.

5.Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6.Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7.Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8.Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9.Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10.Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11.Nominate an ATF director.

12.Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13.Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14.Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15.Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16.Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17.Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18.Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19.Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20.Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21.Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22.Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23.Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

So they are making a gun Confiscation List in the Health Care System?

So now when you reach a certain age, someone comes to you house and says "you are now too old to have a gun in the house and we have to take your driving privileges also".

Full Disclosure: There will be more than 6 agencies that have access to this information on your gun ownership.

1) Local Police
2) FBI
3) County Police
4) State Highway Patrol
5) DHS
6) NSA
7) Local Fire Deptartment
8) Coast Guard in case where you live by a Canal
9) ATF
10) DEA
11) CBP, ICE, and Border patrol
12) Local Crisis Hotline
13) IRS for Tax Reasons of total assets
14) Child Protective services
15) Judge and Court for Divorce as list of total assets
16) Bankrupcy Court total assets
17) Prosecutor & Defense Attorny since they just like to know

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I'm a little concerned about the "infirm" thing...

[-] 4 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

You & me don't have to worry, they will put something into the water to make us get Alzheimers. I'm guessing that our brains are fully formed and not so damaged by pesticides and chemicals. Okay, I was just watching a video on organic farming, so I am a little skewed.

Patriarchy is a guy sitting in Washington DC and making pronouncements about how we should live. Eventhough we are adults and we have rights to live anyway we want to.

Patriarchy is a guy sitting in Washington and signing executive orders just because he has the power.

Patriarchy is some guy that is full of himself and he is gonna tell you want is right, how to live, what to drink or eat, what to smoke, how much ot weigh, What risk you pose to others in terms of domestic violence, what risk you have to harm someone based on your records of socialization or other records....
Patriarchs will tell you not to drink ...
Patriarchs have no limits or boundries as far as what they will place limits on your life about.

But guess what. They only speak on the microphone in terms of Rhetoric. They realy don't believe what they say. There are no principals involved. Philosophy is about setting aside emotion and looking at principal. Do you see any of that in the MSM news. No. Because it is all Rhetoric and emotional propaganda.

Look at my post on Logic, the Serach for Truth, Dialectic Method, Socratic Method... Hell no one else is looking at it. All I am trying to say is that we have to set aside emotion and let cooler heads prevail.

[-] 3 points by Renneye (3874) 5 years ago

I've been looking at it Middleaged! 95% of my time on the forum is spent reading. I wish I had time to post more and make it obvious...but please know that I support your work here.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

No offense, but nothing that has occurred in this country over the past forty years would suggest to me that we are capable of rationality, let alone logic.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Exactly. I guess passing information and writing is the only way to try to spread ideas for me. I'm not a protester. Have never protested. Government is full of followers and leaders. Everyone wants to lead. But in the end some guy acts like our daddy and he implements some agenda of an interest group.

The Drugging Of Our Children (Full Length 1 hour 43 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26e5PqrCePk (Gary Null, opens up a can of whoop-ass, but no one is listening)

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

New York, 2 13 year old girls and a 12 year old girl beat a mother at a bus stop as she puts her child on the bus. I guess a woman or man would just have to try to punch back. The girls probably chose a woman that look like a weak target. Think they should be charged as Adults since the woman has many injuries and it says "internal Injuries". I don't think you can shoot kids if you are attacked BTW.


[-] 3 points by Marlow (1141) 5 years ago

I want the NRA to stop Messing with our Rights..

.. FACT: ..100% of American Citizens Do Not Want to get Shot!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

LOL - sorry but had to chuckle at the thought that anyone wants to get shot.

[-] 2 points by Marlow (1141) 5 years ago

you get me , DK... some dont

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Thx ( very much appreciate the compliment ) - I like try to "get" everyone - but you are rewarding as well as fun. There are some others on this forum that I also really enjoy "getting".

BTW People - getting - is understanding - it is an art of listening to what is said as well as how it is said - communications ( good communications ) need you to try to "get" others.

This was one to grow on.

The more you know....................

[-] 3 points by Marlow (1141) 5 years ago

Cripes.. Kill me now... .. Are We THAT Old that we have to Explain to people what 'Get Me' means? .. 'to the nines'.. i would under stand... but what the hey?


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

No ( LOL ) its not age - some people just don't "get it" if they are not specifically shown it. It is not really a matter of intelligence either - more of a paying attention to what others are saying - and many are distracted by their daily lives and so often times "don't get it" ( miss it ). {:-])

People - it is kinda like the statement that common sense is not common - its not that common sense is complicated - its not - "people" often times get too complicated.

This has been a public service announcement.

The more you know.

[-] 3 points by Marlow (1141) 5 years ago

Thx for explaining, how explaining is necessary... (gotcha!)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

You are already there - I just hope to inspire others to join. {:-])

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

BTW - you get me and I love it - thank you.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

What about firearm suicides? Obviously twenty-thousand something people each year are into it for one reason or another. More like only .999933% dont want to get shot.

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 5 years ago

I stand (accurately) corrected.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

lol - hmmm - only sane people do not want to get shot - who woulda guessed - Hey?

I suppose if we take that thought further - sane people do not want to shoot people.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

To quantify this, it is estimated about 2% of the population is psycho; i.e. 2% don't give a hoot about whether they kill somebody or not, and with good likelihood most of them get off on it. So, adding in the people who are into suicide (see note above) in reality only about 97.999933% of the people are not into shooting people.

So, that makes about 6 million people in the U.S.A. alone which we have to worry about.

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 5 years ago

By George, I think you've got it! ... Looks like another Fun Day..

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

It has been interesting around here the last couple of days.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

Well Duh... That;s why they carry guns. Got it now?

[-] 3 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

I have a question - why hasn't a lot of these "initiatives" already being implimented?

Seems to me a lot of things listed should have already been taking place. Oh wait, he can do what he wants and blame the Republicans.

[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

'Behind The NRA's Money' - http://www.nationofchange.org/behind-nra-s-money-gun-lobby-deepens-financial-ties-12-billion-firearms-industry-1358354431 - What do semi-automatic assault weapons have to do with The Second Amendment? Occupy The Issues!

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Thanks. Replying to other post from you on the Website Nation of Change. Seems like a very nice website with lots of good authors and info. Very Professional. I found a good one here that proves we have had a coup in Washington DC.


Well, article shows many things. Points out that there should be a cost ... or a downside ... or a Rating Down-Grade ... for corpotations that pay huge Benefits Packages to Executives while cutting wages and benefits for the common man. Corporations become so big there is no Downside to huge executive pay.

Question: I write a little about doing away with lobby groups, PACs, and Soft money organizations. I guess we can have groups like Nation Of Change which is a 501(c) organization even after Banning Lobbying ... the 501(c) would just exist as a news outlet or as an online activist organization.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

Of course there has been a coup in America, which is being slowly incrementally implemented for 50 years, since JFK & RFK were asassinated. Tomorrow's inauguration will be an abject case in point -

http://www.nationofchange.org/obama-inauguration-sponsors-spent-millions-influencing-government-1358609769 .

From the link - 'The ceremony on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, perhaps fittingly, falls squarely on the third anniversary of one of the most notable political influence developments in U.S. history — the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision — which Obama decried as a “huge victory” for special interests and their lobbyists and a “powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence.” Chief among corporate inaugural donors: AT&T Inc., Microsoft Corp., energy giant Southern Co., biotechnology firm Genentech and health plan manager Centene Corp. Together, more than 300 registered lobbyists worked on the five companies’ behalf to influence legislation and government policy, according to their latest federal filings covering January through September.'

The Supreme Court's terrible 'Citizens United' decision was the next stage of The Corporate Take Over of our sham duopoly-democracy - http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/01/03/7782/big-bucks-flood-2012-election-what-courts-said-and-why-we-should-care/ and our abject apathy is our own undoing unless we wake up. Also - http://www.nationofchange.org/citizens-united-still-matters-our-courts-are-auction-block-1358606910 . Never Give Up Hoping & Working For The Awakening! Occupy The Issues! Solidarity.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Thanks, good long article with info. I saved it. I'm in the middle of like 3 videos and 3 other articles.

You know AT&T is our 2nd largest Spy agencies, right?

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

Sadly you're probably right & I'll spare you any more links, lol. Never Give Up! Occupy Solidarity!

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Added your links to my post on Big Business so I don't lose them. http://occupywallst.org/forum/america-is-about-big-business-simple-take-over-of-/

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

Thanks and you should put the link to your post up here too. Solidarity & occupy a twinkle*!

[-] -1 points by Atomsk (2) 5 years ago

Theres no such thing as a SEMI-automatic assault rifle. Semi-automatic means one bullet fired per one pull of the trigger. The vast majority of personal firearms in this country are semi-automatic.

Fun fact: the last firearm used to assassinate a US President was NOT semi-automatic. It was a bolt action rifle.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

Yep. Real 'fun fact'! Laugh this up - http://www.nationofchange.org/5-people-shot-3-different-gun-shows-gun-appreciation-day-1358693442 . Never give up trying to 'arm yourself' with facts - then occupy your feelings! Guns are killing machines! That is their sole purpose! Fear corrodes the soul & diminishes us.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Everybody who has been bragging about being law abiding citizens need to get ready to continue to be law abiding. Come on, it'll be fun and there will be more kids alive to play with.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Hi BOS. I'm learning a little about health this week. Did you see stuff about the Lead in the air causing kids to act hyper and sometimes get pushed on to medication for ADD. Was watching a couple of videos about the dangers of vaccines, but wikipedia takes the opposite side on the dangers. This doctor breaks it down with a FOI document from meeting minutes. Dr. Russell Blaylock.

http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html I'm passing to a couple of people to see if they heard bad things about Blaylock. He sounds like the most sane person on the issue. He thinks like a scientist should.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Very troubling. I don't know anything about Blaylock. Yet.

[-] 1 points by Atomsk (2) 5 years ago

If youre interested in lead pollution and its relation to behavior and violent crime, you REALLY need to read this article: http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Thanks, good format. I think I saw this before but the print was small.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Sure seems to correlate.

[-] 2 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 5 years ago

Is there any difference between the Dems exploiting the shooting to push their agenda and the Repubs using 9/11 to push the Patriot Act on us?

[-] 1 points by Atomsk (2) 5 years ago

None at all. Theyre even using the EXACT same playbook. Its been so obvious to me since minute ONE of this entire scenario, right down to them staging "training exercises" exactly paralleling the unfolding tragedy miles away, to confuse radio operators and prevent any emergency team interference in an ongoing operation. Its the same, its all the same. And ive been trying to tell people for weeks that Sandy Hook is 9/11 for Democrats. The people in charge know how to manipulate the Left just as easily as they manipulate the Right.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

They both follow the exact same scenario. This is why it is so tragic that so many people refuse to consider 9/11 truth out of fear.

They both were false flag/gov't terrorism against their own people attacks designed to bring about the very results we see.

To understand today's world, it is necessary to comprehend three concepts: false flag attacks, information warfare and control fraud.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Shock Doctrine - Manipulation

[-] 1 points by BitterClinger (8) 5 years ago

No, there is absolutely no diff bt Bush's misuse of a tragedy and Obama and the gun grabbers'. But that in no way justifies it. I am tired of hearing about past sins as if they make new ones ok. Bush steamrolled the 4th ammendment but I don;t think that means that Obama gets to do the same to the 2nd. Besides, Obama got his indef detention. That;s MORE than enough for one POTUS. Enough is enough.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Don't know - degree of abuse? Will we be going to war in some state that does not recognize support gun regulation? What resources will we be securing there?

[-] 1 points by 4now (4) 5 years ago

What about one life taken because of these laws?

[-] 1 points by zippyhorn (-5) 5 years ago


3 Yes, because criminals apply for background checks before they steal gunz! Facepalm.

9 Oh? Like Fast and Furious? Yea, like that'll happen. I think not.

11 The president needs to issue himself an executive order to nominate an ATF director? I think not.

12 Really? I believe the local SWAT team and first responders know their job a helluva lot better than a bureaucrap in the White House who has never fired a gun or been an EMT in their life. More useless legislation from Latvian history, basket weaving and sociology majors at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

14 Oh yay! More "research and studies" of the obvious. In other words, more pork for bureacraps and Uncle Sham.

15 Oh yay. "new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies." More crony capitalism by handouts and subsidies!

18 What the hell is a "school resource officer"? Answer: more pork to get the tax payer further in debt.

23 Oh yay. A national dialogue! I'm getting warm and tingly all over!

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

There's not one law there that addresses illegal possession - the cause of our routine daily shootings.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Good Point, Something more people should reflect on.

It is like a Magician look over here, not over here.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

All well and good, Girl, but it's wholly unconstitutional. Because in most cases, these are state and not federal rights.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Here, what you want

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (24) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 days ago There's not one law there that addresses illegal possession - the cause of our routine daily shootings.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

is limited.

It was limited with US v Lopez http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

The link that I just gave you shows their jurisdiction. How is that out of their jurisdiction?

Commerce Clause is a beautiful thang, ain't it? Tax and Spend Clause is a beautiful thang, ain't it?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

While I enjoyed the links, I have to admit, I think you lost me somewhere. While I recognize the right to federally regulate the interstate commerce of guns and ammo, I fail to see how they can regulate intrastate commerce or possession - these are state rights issues (but perhaps I am just confusing bills here?).

I don't know but there must be limits to interstate commerce; if not than that clause need not exist - the distinction of interstate need not exist - and Congress would be granted unlimited power to regulate all activities - including reproduction - which by any stretch of the imagination can be construed, either directly or indirectly, as "commerce."

I'm with you on the illegal flow of firearms, 100%.

You know, all this creates a problem for me... because you see... I'd like to purchase an M1 carbine; I just think they're really cool. And I'm not certain how Cuomo's legislation will impact that purchase, or, my desire to purchase a few thousand rounds with it, inexpensively.

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 5 years ago

Ban "assault weapons" even though they contribute to only 3% of homicides in the US

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Of course they are not assault weapons. No military in the world would consider using them. That doesn't matter to the gunhate nutters. They've pulled a Breitbart and stolen a march on us -- they've been able to chose the terms (i.e., chose the battlefield) even if it required being intellectually dishonest.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

What do you want assault weapons for? What are they designed to do? Who gains from their trade? Why aren't shotguns, bolt-action hunting rifles, pistols and revolvers enough? What do you want next? RPGs? Claymores? Tanks & APCs? Where and when does this end? What are you so frightened of?

[-] 2 points by Atomsk (2) 5 years ago

Pistols ARE enough. Unfortunately, anti-gun nuts know literally ZERO about guns, and dont understand that ALL PISTOLS are semi-automatic and thus are considered "assault weapons" by their own definition.

If these people get their way, eventually the only weapons we will be allowed to own are bolt action rifles, you know, like the one used to assassinate Kennedy. At least, until someone uses one to shoot up a school. Then the only weapons we will be allowed to own are sharpened sticks. Until someone stabs someone at a school with one, of course.

[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

D'you know what 'reactionary' means?

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Hello, they are not really assault weapons. They are autoloaders, the firing gases drive the reloading mechanisms. All automatics (handguns like the Glock) are also autoloaders. There must be close to 100 million autos out there.

Machine guns (also called, confusingly enough, fully automatic), burst fire weapons (also called semiautomatic) are rightfully illegal, in my opinion (those weapons are the real assault weapons). I also agree with a restriction of magazine size.

But the response to the Sandy Hook False Flag Attack is a planned psyop attack on the 2nd Amendment.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

Behold - the blind leading the sightless! Do YOU know what 'reactionary' means? Tch!

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

You stink of New World Odor.

Tch, back at ya. Is that modern psyop theory? Using ridicule, but sort of friendly and humorous, to put me in my place and back down from my position? Seems kind of amateurish and high schoolish to me..

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

You are a fearful reactionary and you don't seem to handle criticism or a different opinion too well. Tch & 'Behind The NRA's Money' - http://www.nationofchange.org/behind-nra-s-money-gun-lobby-deepens-financial-ties-12-billion-firearms-industry-1358354431 - What The Second Amendment have to to with semi-automatic assault weapons? Occupy The Issues!

[-] -1 points by Atomsk (2) 5 years ago

Burst fire weapons are NOT semi-automatic. Semi-automatic is one bullet chambered and fired per trigger pull.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Well I said it was confusing. I thought both definitions were in use.

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 5 years ago

I feel safer already.

[-] 3 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

He needs to focus on the problem - "drugged violent individuals who like to kill innocent people".

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

everything seems reasonable to me thus far.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

There was a person interviewed in Chicago today and was asked if his initiatives would help out - the guy laughed - and then commented saying "it's never going to change"

So far to date - 20 people killed this year - I guess they are going to try to break last years record.

Oh and if you didn't know - they have the "strictest gun laws on the books".

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

There is no political solution to a cultural problem.

[-] 1 points by BitterClinger (8) 5 years ago

How sad and true. Plus there is no one size fits all soution. You got your spree shooters, your sneaky serial killers, you got your gangbangers that often are criminals killing criminals, and of course, you got that guy caught in someone else's bed or wanting someone else's money. In Chicago, the murder capital of the usa, even Obama admitted during the debates that it wasn't semi auto rifles (aka assault weapons) but 'cheap handguns'. He knows banning semi autos is an empty political bone, but an important weakening of the 2nd Ammendment. It;s politics pure and simple.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Military weapons and military ammunitions, outside of a legitimate combat zone or battlefield, aren't a contributing factor to that 'cultural problem'?

[-] 2 points by BitterClinger (8) 5 years ago

The so called assault weapon is really just a semi automatic rifle that looks like a military weapon. It ia not machine gun. However, every local, state and federal swat team is rigged out like they are Special Ops. And they have assault rifles, aka machine guns. THAT is scary. Does it not bother you that law enforcement is wielding true weapons of war on our city streets, which last I looked, were not legitimate battlefields?
If you care to learn a little about so called assault weapons, please see below:


[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Logical fallacy. A truly ridiculous false equivalency. No I absolutely do not believe that any freaking nutball out there should have the same access to military weapons and military ammunitions that the military or law enforcement does. Have you lost your mind?

Let me point out the obvious for you - aside from the fact that they are trained professionals!! - government has many privileges and potential privileges that the average person doesn't have. I'll give you a few examples since this very obvious fact seems lost on you: the ability to coin money, wiretapping, declaring war. Just to name a few. But your false equivalency is highly amusing.

Why don't you take your guns and go coin some money or something. Then rejoin your circle jerk around your seriously flawed interpretation of the Second Amendment and false equivalencies. Hilarious.

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

I would say its lock and step right with it. We are blowing up people all over the planet. No one cares. We are invading countries that have done nothing to us, sovereign nations, no one cares.

People carrying military rifles around here seems like it fits right in. We fuckin love war in this country.

And besides, they have turned the country into a battlefield with their legislation the last 12 years. So again, seems like its a natural reaction.

When the gov is declaring that it can take you away, as an American, with no rights, I would expect people to start to think the shit is going to hit the fan.

A government that traffics arms all over the globe has no right to tell its people how they have to live. If they gov cant keep the illegals it claims to despise (an entire other arguement) from crossing the border, or all the drugs, then why would the guns be different?

[-] 0 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Face it. The gun idiots all wrapped up in the Second Amendment are never actually going to 'use' their precious military style weapons against the government. It's just Second Amendment jibber jabber. From a bunch of idiots in a circle jerk.

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

I was accused on this Forum of being a Gunhater.I'm not-but I do Hate & Despise Lying Hypocrites-Which these Second Amendment Supporters are.They have had many chances to Attack The Tyrannical Gubmint with their Firearms.At Waco,large crowds gathered-as they Should Have Done,but Nobody took a Shot at the Masses of Gubmint Agents who were Killing the Branch Davidians.Ruby Ridge-Same Thing-Post Katrina Confiscations-Same Thing.At least when the Anarchists Warned Ray Broward to stay Out of Brooklyn,somebody Actually took a shot at him.No,These are Brownshirts who would Never Attack Anybody who is more Heavily Armed Than They Themselves Are.They want to Use Their Guns to kill Unarmed,Helpless Civilians whenever the Right Demagogue Comes Along.

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Yeah right. The truth is, the vast majority of people believe in the myriad of other protections in the Constitution meant to prevent any kind of government tyranny. Even most gun owners I suspect.

Some of them simply use the Second Amendment to protect their hobby. The rest use it to self-soothe their paranoia of government tyranny. Like thumb sucking.

It's never going to be used against the government. Frankly, I don't believe the majority of even the most paranoid of gun owners has the stomach for it. Though they will continue to cling to their guns, suckers for the NRA/gun manufacturers such as they are. Until the tanks come rolling down the street I suppose. If there were ever to be a time where the tanks are rolling down the streets, by then, it's already too late.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

'Behind The NRA's Money' - http://www.nationofchange.org/behind-nra-s-money-gun-lobby-deepens-financial-ties-12-billion-firearms-industry-1358354431 - and thank you for another excellent comment. Never Give Up Highlighting The Absurdities! Occupy Reality! Solidarity.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

Agreed. Taking an AK-47 from a law abiding citizen will not change this type cultural problem.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

So very true

[-] -1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

what about the next state over do they have tough laws?

[-] 2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Nope - which means a person can go to another state steal firearms, come back and continue their drug business.

[-] -1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

all the more reason for a FEDERAL ban.

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Gee, he left out the most important one. SELF DEPORTATION. And if that doesn't work, there is always impeachment. These options should be on the table. All of you mass murderers in waiting, pack up your AR-15's, 100 round magazines, body armor, suitable for hunting rabbits and just self deport. It should be obvious that we don't want you in our neighborhoods, so get out. Take your militia membership card and leave.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Hey, we don't want to live in your neighborhood - apparently you live in a "big city" where all the problems are. Law abiding firearms owners live in rural areas.

That's why the vast majority of people whom are gun control freeks live in "big cities" where there are mass murders.

And the vast majority of people whom live among the criminals are "girly metro men" who have given their balls to their "overbearing controling wife or girlfriend' all of whom wouldn't know how to defend themselves should their life depend on it.


[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

There are fields all around me. Still too close. Hunters, fine. My family are hunters. We would be happy with single shots. More challenging. Black powder, sure Militia men with war fighter firepower, see ya. Macho men wearing camos year round, packing concealed Glocks, semis with big clips, conversions to fire 900 rounds per minute, that's who people have to fear. Take a hike. Somalia is the action you're looking for.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Tell me how many "sane" people have ever killed anyone? Just because a person owns a Fararri that can go 200 MPH when the speed limit is 70 does that mean that person should't own it?

I haven't seen any "Macho men wearing camos year round packing concealed Glocks, semis with "big clips", conversions to fire 900 rounds per minute.

Sounds to me like you live in Africa or Lybia.

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

I think you just caught brightonsage in a fib. The Heckler & Koch MP5 only goes to 900 rounds per minute. I don't know what he is talking about. I can't imagine more than 100 rounds per minute. The techology is out of the roof. Most people can't get a drum magizine to function for 100 rounds and some guy is gonna say there are guns that function to 900 rounds per min. Okay... there is one gun with 900 rounds per minute capability. wow. how many criminals or people will get it to perform like that? Zero.

800 rounds/min (MP5A series, MP5/10 and MP5/40)
700 rounds/min (MP5SD series)
900 rounds/min (MP5K series)

What do you call an argument that will never come true.
Fallacious. A citizen that goes against a trained professional loses. And there really aint anybody that can fire 900 rounds per minute.


[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Have you been south lately? Everybody down there wears camo - even the Gays wear camo - it's hysterical.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Isn't that where Libertopia is?

[-] 2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Well, the movie took place in NH.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

A whole lot of people were law abiding citizens until they weren't. They may have been walking around saying a lot of radical nonsense about guns and second amendment and black helicopters and jack booted ATF agents and then, although nobody could possibly have predicted it, like Harris, and Klebold and Holmes, they got hold of weapons nobody who is not in the military would ever need to have, and they killed a bunch of absolutely innocent people. It sounds like the US. Regarding the car.

It means he should have a drivers license, and the car should be registered and it should meet safety standards and records of any misuse of it should be in a data base to appropriate authorities. If the owner is convicted of certain misuses of it, his license should be revoked and if he does certain other things it should be confiscated. All of these are current law. this is the case because even though the car has very legitimate uses, getting from here to there it can kill people. If its only purpose was to kill people the regulation of it should be even more restrictive. Naw,. look at Ted Nugent. He fits that description. Sounds like you live in De Nile.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

But, But, there are coyotes and rattlesnakes where I live. Surely you don't want me to to be unprotected?

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Pretty easy to bluff most coyotes, in my experience, if you have to be out among them, If that isn't enough, a child's aluminum baseball bat is available without a license and will do that job. And, it is dual purposed.

Other than that, a condom should be enough protection. Wouldn't want to put someone in the position where they might have to break a law, would we?

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

It's even worse than that - they are voluntarily handing over their possessions to every black man that approaches on the street for fear of getting their asses kicked; it's sickening. Sure, control those guns - because we don't have any - and we're very envious.

[-] -2 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

Sorry, but you can rant, rage, foam at the mouth and throw as big a temper tantrum as you can muster. It's futile, just pissing in the wind.

People will never give up their guns; and the government will never try to take them. Maybe a few minor regulations, but even that's starting to look unlikely. By the way I own both AR and black powder rifles. Enjoy shooting both.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

And your enjoyment trumps all of those lives. Gotta make you proud. The law doesn't require you to have them. There are some things you can't help solve by changing your personal culture. But there is all of that enjoyment.

[-] -2 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

You see, that’s the problem with anti-gun nuts. They want to paint honest gun owners as the bad guy. As a group gun owners are among the most peaceful, law abiding people in the US. What you can’t understand, what you refuse to understand is restricting guns from good honest people solves nothing. It’s not that hard to understand.

Here's a link worth looking at. Barack Obama and Diane Feinstein are the greatest gun salesmen in the entire history of the universe.


[-] 4 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Whether a gun owner is honest is totally irrelevant. Being dishonest doesn't threaten somebody's life. If you have a gun in your house there is a much higher probability that you will die from a gunshot wound. You are much more likely to be a suicide victim. You are more likely to be wounded accidentally. You are more likely to be short by an intruder who is more likely to use your gun. In my paper a couple coming home surprised a burglar who killed both of them (possibly with their gun). You don't have to have a gun. I gave a gun I inherited from my father to a nephew who is a hunter. I had no need for it and I am actually safer without it. You would be safer without yours

I am sorry you are afraid but you can get help with that, in ways that won't increase your risk. Bad guys were good guys, until they weren't. Most gun deaths are the result of someone's first killing.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

My family has owned guns in this country for almost 400 years and, yes, during that time period, no doubt, they have occupied various locations in the home. Yet not a single family member has EVER been accidentally shot or committed suicide.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

That's the difference between anecdotes and statistics. You could be an outlier, or even just a liar. The don't sell insurance based on anecdotes. My family has been here since 1634 and one signed the proclamation forming the first militia and was one of the first 13 commanders. What does that prove? Well, nothing actually. We could talk about the history of "well regulated militias"? My family ate mushrooms, Wanna go out in the woods and eat some?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I have to confess I am not certain when the first militias were formed but I suspect it was long before 1634 and that it occurred in Virginia.

My above statement is 100% factual and we're keeping our guns no matter your stance or opinion.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

History says no. "In 1661 Governor William Berkeley stated, "All our freemen are bound to be trained every month in their particular counties." " http://www.constitution.org/jw/acm_5-m.htm But I am not that familiar with Virginia. It is relevant in that at the time of the Revolution their militia didn't have many guns and was totally ineffective most of the war. Militias in most of the colonies were armed with halberds, pikes, swords, knives, farm tools and clubs, some of the land owners had guns but many didn't want to actually fight and sent overseers, and craftsmen.

"Mason drew from his own previous writings upon his founding of the Fairfax County Independent Company of Volunteers on September 21, 1774.[4] This company was a paramilitary organization independent of the Crown's militia. Article 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights which established the militia clause as a fundamental right was based upon three solid English rights: the right to revolution, the right to group self-preservation and the right to self-defense. Under Article 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights he wrote:

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." "

Militias were strengthened in the Southern states after the Revolution in order to maintain slavery, that is why the Second Amendment was changed from "country" to "state." Some think slavery is nearly over, some wish it wasn't. I know you agree that "in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." "

My family lived in Tornado Alley for many years and were never killed by a tornado. Didn't make the insurance any cheaper. You are welcome to keep the legal ones because I know you want to be a law-abiding citizen. You can keep the illegal ones in Texas or some other country.

What do you think about that standing army part?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I'm not sure what to think of your comments. The first organized Indian attack occurred in Virginia is 1622 and claimed 347 lives. Within two years the colonists avenged these deaths (a few times over) and, of course, they could not have done so without an organized military force. These early English colonials were actually engaged on the east coast from the time they got off the very first boat in MA until at least the early 1690s. We're not just talking militias here, we're talking standing armies.

It appears Endicott created one of the first organized militias at Salem in 1629; the first commissioned officers appear in the General Court records in 1631; in 1642, a very well organized army of three hundred men was raised to counter an Indian scare which culminated in the death of the Narragansett sachem, Miantonomo.

Some of these Indian fighters spent so much time in the field over the course of their twenty five or third year careers that it was said they were never able to sleep on a feather bed again, preferring instead the floor.

Certainly following the Rev there was concern in the South of insurrection; emancipation was one of four very divisive tools the British had utilized in an attempt to subjugate the colonists; some slaves volunteered to serve the British only to be enslaved all over again, others simply ran off to become maroons. After the war, of course, Washington dissolved the standing army and the local militias once again assumed center stage in defense. Washington later writes to posterity to explain his position in the 2nd Amendment, and to this day, Virginia still has a militia.

What do I think of your standing army part? Well, today we have national defense - that is our "standing army" - and there is this impression that it cannot be used against the American people, but there are extenuating circumstances.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

I think being a law abiding, responsible gun owner is tantamount to this conversation. When you’re trying to ban some gun types and gun features. What does it accomplish by taking guns away from honest people.

I don’t agree with your logic. We don’t ban things because they, at some point, might be dangerous. We don’t ban cars because some people drive badly and injure\kill people. We don’t ban sky diving because it’s dangerous, we don’t ban backyard barbeques because someone could get burned. You see where I’m going here?

It doesn’t matter why someone owns a gun. Could be for hunting, self defense, sport or whatever. Some people may be scared as you state. I say it doesn’t matter why I own guns. I have a right to do so, as long as I do no harm.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Regulate is not the same as "ban." There is a multiple dictionaries available on the web. If you don't know what a word means you can look it up.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

I’m going out on a limb here and predict most of the gun restrictions will not pass. I think maybe universal background checks will pass; and maybe banning armor piercing ammo. As it stands right now it’s starting to look like a semi-auto rifles ban and ten round mag restriction won’t survive.

Also, according to ABC news, some states are not waiting of the feds and are implementing state level restriction, several other states are saying they will not enforce any new rules. Eight states are looking at legislation to make it illegal attempt to enforce any new restrictions. My thought was, Wow, this gives a whole new meaning to red and blue states.

What if when this is over we have millions of gun owners relocating to states with fewer gun restriction. For instance, Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott, published a couple of internet ads targeting New York gun owners. Basically they say, Come to Texas, keep your guns, lower you taxes and have more opportunity.

This gun issue is giving a whole new meaning to red and blue state. We’re truly a divided nation, drowned in government gridlock and a hate between the people that no rational discussion is possible. We may very well be domed as a nation.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

I have been saying for some time that this probably the best outcome. Go to Texas, set your watch back to 1863, vote to secede. Then build your fence (including Kansas and Oklahoma, ( have relatives there)), get set to be annexed by Mexico (check your Latino population numbers), and change the official language to Spanish. Good luck. Anybody here speak Canadian, eh?

Oh, today's news: Accidental shootings at gun shows in North Carolina, Indiana and Ohio left five people injured Saturday, the same day that thousands of gun advocates gathered peacefully at state capitals around the U.S. to rally against stricter firearm limits.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

The south will rise again. But this time it will include most of the fly over states. It will be LA, Chicago and NY against the new Confederacy. Long live Dixie.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Yeah, I can almost remember when it was safe to visit there. Denver is purple going on blue. Governor, Senate, House are blue, but narrowly. Fair number of women but half are hostages. Growing Hispanic population figures to keep it blue But it is surrounded by Kan., Wyo., and Utah (teachers packing without telling parents)? Ariz. just beyond New Mex. It safe to land before heading on to Calif., Ore., Hawaii, and Wash.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

Colorado will eventually see the eror of it's ways. The only folks who worry me is the jayhawkers. They might be a force to be dealt with.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

There are all sorts of restrictions on 'rights'. Free speech for example. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Schenck v US 1919 later clarified by Brandenburg v Ohio 1969.

Your free speech is restricted. One person's rights end where another persons begins. Or where the general welfare of society is harmed or at risk of being harmed.

Cars have a functional purpose aside from killing. The fact that cars can be dangerous is why we have licensing and speed limits. The risks of skydiving are born by the skydiver. The risks of barbequeing are born by the barbaquer.

The Second Amendment has already been adjudicated for restrictions and regulations for types of guns. Machines guns were banned a long time ago. US v Miller.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

Buttercup, You are on the ball. I agree with every word you said.

But my owning guns does not infringe on anyone else's rights. You say guns are only used to kill. I say if the bad guy is trying to kill me then I'd prefer to kill him first.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Since your being a highly responsible person, your using narcotics, presumably, would not infringe on another person's rights either. But narcotics are striclty regulated. Because we decided that narcotics have a corrosive and damaging affect on society. The same could be said of types of weapons and ammunitions.

Of the Harrison Narcotics Act 1914, Whipple v Martinson 1921 - 'There can be no question of the authority of the state in the exercise of its police power to regulate the administration, sale, prescription and use of dangerous and habit-forming drugs, such as are named in the statute. The right to exercise this power is so manifest in the interest of the public health and welfare, that it is unnecessary to enter upon a discussion of it beyond saying that it is too firmly established to be successfully called in question.'

The same logic can be applied to weapons and ammunitions - 'manifest in the interest of the public health and welfare'. In addition to Miller that already established the regulating 'types' of weapons.

'if the bad guy is trying to kill me then I'd prefer to kill him first' - fails logic. A gun doesn't stop a bullet. The only appropriate response to a bullet is armor.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

You seem like a nice person. So, I won’t put all the rehashed gun ban drama on you. Doubtful we will change each other’s mind (that seems to be the norm on everything these days).

I’ll just say a large portion of the estimated 85 million gun owners will not comply with any new gun regulations. I’m going out on a limb here, but I doubt a semi-auto weapon ban a ten round mag restriction will pass. However, universal background checks probably will pass.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Your selfish needs do not outweigh the manifest 'interest of the public health and welfare'. Your beliefs are selfish, illogical, anachronistic and juvenile. Very Gunfight at the OK Corral-ish.

I have no illusions. Machine guns didn't disappear overnight after the 1934 Firearms Act. It will probably take a generation.

Or maybe you think the 1934 Firearms Act should be repealed and we should have unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons again? It would certainly increase your chances of stopping a bullet with a gun - if you had a fully automatic weapon.

Why should we not repeal the the 1934 Firearms Act? Why shouldn't a person have the same access to a fully automatic with 50 rounds, as well as a semi-automatic with 50 rounds? Wouldn't you be safer with a fully automatic weapon?

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm curious about your thoughts. Why should there be a difference between owning a fully automatic v a semi automatic?

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

The short answer to your question is there’s not a lot of difference between full-auto rifles (machine guns) and modern semi-auto rifles (AR’s, AK’s, etc..). From a technical prospective, most full-auto rifles have the ability for burst firing, meaning three or so rounds every time you pull the trigger; and a lot have select fire where you change back and forth between full-auto and semi-auto with the flip of a switch. Generally full-auto fire just wastes ammo. Almost all full-auto capable rifles are used in burst fire more or semi-auto mode.

Sorry for the firearms lesson, but my point is very few people want full-auto weapons. They’re not good to fight with. Most modern semi-auto’s fire faster than most people can handle anyway. I really don’t care if we have full-auto weapons or not. If I wanted I could legally buy a bump fire stock which simulates full-auto fire so well most people can’t tell the difference.

I don’t think myself selfish at all. I’m a law abiding citizen, never been arrested, vote, pay taxes. I’m a nice guy, been married 44 years and feel strongly people should conduct themselves responsibly and ethically. I spent a couple of hours this morning raking leaves so my youngest five year old granddaughter could jump in the leaf pile and mess it up.

My point is gun owners are not the redneck hillbillies you want us to be. We are your friends, neighbors and co-workers. The fact we own guns doesn’t make us bad, unfeeling or hard people. We just think taking our guns won’t solve anything. This nations problems are much deeper greater than guns.

P.S. Private citizens can own machine guns (full-auto weapons). It’s a hassle though. You have to submit a ton of paperwork, pay a fee and wait several months for approval and register the weapon. There are millions of machine guns in private hands.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

You know, my first job was at the age of 12 at a trap and skeet. Everybody in my family owns guns. I grew up around guns. You guys are pretty damn funny. The problem as far as I see it is that you really want to feel like a victim. Nobody is going to your house to rip your guns out of your hands. Now, I have watched you guys put thread after thread up with distortions of history and thread after thread of how victimized that you are. There are multiple threads of how this is for gun owners to fight the government to defend rights.

I just want to clue you in on something. If you are not being paid then you are obviously being led around by the media. That makes you out to be a sucker. The last thing that I need are people that lack the capacity to critically think talking about how they are defending rights. You are starting to look unhinged. Gun salesman make a profit off unnecessary fear and where does that fuel come from?

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 5 years ago

Did Cuomo not use the "C" word recently?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Sweet pea? Are you asking for a verbal beat down?

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 5 years ago

Well GF, did Cuomo not call for all out "C"onfiscaton or not? Or do you just make jokes when you are deflecting a question? Just be glad you didn;t call me Honey :-)

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Well, freaky did Remington Arms have a knipshit or what?

He can't just confiscate them, Honey.

Beware Sugar. I mean beware if I call you Sugar.

[-] -1 points by freakyfriday (179) 5 years ago

I think if I fight thru all the leftist obsfucation and insults, that;s a "yes, Cuomo said he'd like to confiscate all the semi automatic scary looking rifles" (and probably more since 'assault weapon' is a leftist scare tactic word...there is no such category of guns....a hammer is an assualt weapon in the right (wrong?) hands.

So, don't claim we are panicking over nothing when politicians say they would like to confiscate weapons.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

I think if you sit down and try real hard that this little piece of information will sink in: He can't do that.

Your buying into the shit is simply you buying into the shit. Nothing more and nothing less. You are such a victim.

[-] 2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Cuomo seems to think he can; if one fails to renew a gun license, he believes he can. Personally I think most gun owners have this guy on ignore right now; this is a heavily indebted state which is about to attempt another multibillion dollar tax grab.

But we're not going to report the guns we own and we're not going to buy licenses.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

It will just be that much funner. :D

Just as an aside, everybody seems to have him on ignore right now.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

I’m impressed. Very good points. The truth is gun owners are fearful of the government taking their guns. Paranoid? Maybe. But there are many people, including politicians, would love to take all our guns. If we do not speak out then gun confiscation could be a reality. A bill was filed in congress yesterday to do just that.

The other part is the demonizing of lawful gun owners from anti-gun nuts. For the most part gun owner are responsible lawful people. We are your neighbors, co-workers and family members. You do yourself no favors when you berate gun owners. We are not the toothless hillbillies you wish we were.

Having said all that, the bottom line is banning semi-auto rifles, restricting mag capacity to ten round solves absolutely nothing. As far as universal background checks, it would be a hassle, but probably something most gun folks would agree to.

So, if we sound angry, it’s justified. When anti-gun nuts want to blame us for crime and attempt to paint us as the bad guys we will get angry.

I enjoy trap shooting. Not very good at it, but's it's still fun.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

But, they can't take the guns away. 50% off the bills that are initially put forth are going to be thrown in the trash because they are unconstitutional. That is the cold hard truth and that is for everything. Most others will die in committee. That is the cold hard truth and that is for everything as well.

I posted a link last week or week before last that had a listing of the bills. I got a kick out of it because you can see from the get go they aren't going anywhere. Your talking heads know it but, that doesn't sell.

I don't see a whole lot of demonizing lawful gun owners. When the Journal News published names and addresses many of us were furious because they went too far. They should have printed the names of the dealers and gangbangers. It would have taken a bit more foot work. They didn't. They might have got shot.

It will make a difference. It will take time to see it but it will make a difference. It isn't going to change morality because it isn't about changing morality.

Arming janitors will not make a difference. Nor will arming principals or teachers. In fact the whole convoluted argument reminds me of Lord of War

What we can't understand is why there is a refusal to hold the manufacturers accountable or why there is a refusal to close loopholes. So, if we sound angry, it's justified. Because, the reality is that it would cost the manufacturers money. You are allowing yourselves to feel victimized because the manufacturers and NRA are literally using you as a shield to protect themselves.

Finally, hillbilly hasn't been a geographical location for many, many years. It's a mental state. Not all gun owners qualify. Some non gun owners qualify.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Good comment.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Suggesting that the gun manufacturer be held accountable for mass murder, or any murder, is tantamount to holding auto makers responsible for every auto fatality; it fails the test of rationality. Because that is not what these weapons were designed for, manufactured for, or marketed for.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

But, I don't want them held accountable for mass murder. I want them to be held accountable for the shit that is slipping out the back door. My position here has not changed.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

We have to rein in the illegal flow of guns, I agree.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

I agree

Sssshhhhh. People will talk.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

HA, you are right about hillbillies. I affectionately call myself a red neck, even though I’m college educated and held mid-management positions in the high tech industry before I retired. People really do believe in stereotypes.

As far as guns in schools, teachers and school administrators should not be armed. I think it far more likely a unbalanced or criminal student would take the gun away. At the same time I think there is a need for more schools to have armed security. Whether we like it or not it is a sign of the times. I think, but not sure, some schools already has armed security in some urban areas.

I take offense that people think 300 - 350 million of guns owners are so easily lead by the nose by gun manufactures’ and the NRA. We’re not quite that weak minded. Certainly gun companies try to get people to buy their guns. What’s wrong with that? I also see the NRA as trying to protect our gun rights. I don’t always like what the NRA says, but it’s nice to know someone is fighting for you. Actually, Ted Nugent probably has done more to galvanize gun owners than the NRA lately. Yea, I know Uncle Ted can run off at the mouth, but he’s saying what a lot of gun owners are thinking. Politically correct he is not.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Hugo Black, a former Supreme Court Justice, played that stereotype as he was roping someone in or so I read. He was before my time.

Yes, you will see SROs in some middle and high schools. http://www.schoolsecurity.org/resources/school-resource-officers.html

I take offense that people think 300 - 350 million of guns owners are so easily lead by the nose by gun manufactures’ and the NRA. We’re not quite that weak minded

Well, if you really must then ok. Nowhere did I state that. I doubt very seriously you or I could find stats to warrant such a claim. That said, last night I had to point out to some moron that you could own guns in Chicago. The case that incorporated the second amendment was McDonald v Chicago. Prior to that I had to whip out the federal law that showed that Chicago's laws were the same as and, therefore, no tougher in reality than any others. So, yeah, prolly not 300-350 million but you have about 15 numnuts attracted to this forum.

Nugent sucks. I can't even listen to him anymore. Gun companies that use fear propaganda to sell guns suck. People that buy guns out of the fear propaganda also suck. That would be the weak minded part. Using all of that for manufacturers to avoid making sure that guns don't slip out the back door? Blows chow.

[-] 0 points by aville (-678) 5 years ago

hugo black was a member of the KKK

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Yep, at one time he was. What else you got?

[-] 0 points by aville (-678) 5 years ago

he was a key participant of fdr's court packing scheme,he also authored the opinion favoring fdr's internment of japanese americans during WWII.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

BLACK, J., Opinion of the Court


372 U.S. 335

Gideon v. Wainwright


No. 155 Argued: January 15, 1963 --- Decided: March 18, 1963 MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor. This offense is a felony under [p337] Florida law. Appearing in court without funds and without a lawyer, petitioner asked the court to appoint counsel for him, whereupon the following colloquy took place:

The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case.

The DEFENDANT: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.

Put to trial before a jury, Gideon conducted his defense about as well as could be expected from a layman. He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the State's witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made a short argument "emphasizing his innocence to the charge contained in the Information filed in this case." The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and petitioner was sentenced to serve five years in the state prison. Later, petitioner filed in the Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial court's refusal to appoint counsel for him denied him rights "guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the United States Government." [n1] Treating the petition for habeas corpus as properly before it, the State Supreme Court, "upon consideration thereof" but without an opinion, denied all relief. Since 1942, when Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, was decided by a divided [p338] Court, the problem of a defendant's federal constitutional right to counsel in a state court has been a continuing source of controversy and litigation in both state and federal courts. [n2] To give this problem another review here, we granted certiorari. 370 U.S. 908. Since Gideon was proceeding in forma pauperis, we appointed counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments the following: "Should this Court's holding in Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, be reconsidered?"


The facts upon which Betts claimed that he had been unconstitutionally denied the right to have counsel appointed to assist him are strikingly like the facts upon which Gideon here bases his federal constitutional claim. Betts was indicted for robbery in a Maryland state court. On arraignment, he told the trial judge of his lack of funds to hire a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. Betts was advised that it was not the practice in that county to appoint counsel for indigent defendants except in murder and rape cases. He then pleaded not guilty, had witnesses summoned, cross-examined the State's witnesses, examined his own, and chose not to testify himself. He was found guilty by the judge, sitting without a jury, and sentenced to eight years in prison. [p339] Like Gideon, Betts sought release by habeas corpus, alleging that he had been denied the right to assistance of counsel in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts was denied any relief, and, on review, this Court affirmed. It was held that a refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, for reasons given, the Court deemed to be the only applicable federal constitutional provision. The Court said:

Asserted denial [of due process] is to be tested by an appraisal of the totality of facts in a given case. That which may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, may, in other circumstances, and in the light of other considerations, fall short of such denial.

316 U.S. at 462. Treating due process as "a concept less rigid and more fluid than those envisaged in other specific and particular provisions of the Bill of Rights," the Court held that refusal to appoint counsel under the particular facts and circumstances in the Betts case was not so "offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness" as to amount to a denial of due process. Since the facts and circumstances of the two cases are so nearly indistinguishable, we think the Betts v. Brady holding, if left standing, would require us to reject Gideon's claim that the Constitution guarantees him the assistance of counsel. Upon full reconsideration, we conclude that Betts v. Brady should be overruled.


The Sixth Amendment provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." We have construed [p340] this to mean that, in federal courts, counsel must be provided for defendants unable to employ counsel unless the right is competently and intelligently waived. [n3] Betts argued that this right is extended to indigent defendants in state courts by the Fourteenth Amendment. In response, the Court stated that, while the Sixth Amendment laid down

no rule for the conduct of the States, the question recurs whether the constraint laid by the Amendment upon the national courts expresses a rule so fundamental and essential to a fair trial, and so, to due process of law, that it is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

316 U.S. at 465. In order to decide whether the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is of this fundamental nature, the Court in Betts set out and considered

[r]elevant data on the subject . . . afforded by constitutional and statutory provisions subsisting in the colonies and the States prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the national Constitution, and in the constitutional, legislative, and judicial history of the States to the present date.

316 U.S. at 465. On the basis of this historical data, the Court concluded that "appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial." 316 U.S. at 471. It was for this reason the Betts Court refused to accept the contention that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel for indigent federal defendants was extended to or, in the words of that Court, "made obligatory upon, the States by the Fourteenth Amendment." Plainly, had the Court concluded that appointment of counsel for an indigent criminal defendant was "a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial," it would have held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires appointment of counsel in a state court, just as the Sixth Amendment requires in a federal court. [p341]

We think the Court in Betts had ample precedent for acknowledging that those guarantees of the Bill of Rights which are fundamental safeguards of liberty immune from federal abridgment are equally protected against state invasion by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This same principle was recognized, explained, and applied in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), a case upholding the right of counsel, where the Court held that, despite sweeping language to the contrary in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), the Fourteenth Amendment "embraced" those "‘fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions,'" even though they had been "specifically dealt with in another part of the federal Constitution." 287 U.S. at 67. In many cases other than Powell and Betts, this Court has looked to the fundamental nature of original Bill of Rights guarantees to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes them obligatory on the States. Explicitly recognized to be of this "fundamental nature," and therefore made immune from state invasion by the Fourteenth, or some part of it, are the First Amendment's freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances. [n4] For the same reason, though not always in precisely the same terminology, the Court has made obligatory on the States the Fifth Amendment's command that [p342] private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, [n5] the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, [n6] and the Eighth's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. [n7] On the other hand, this Court in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), refused to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment made the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment obligatory on the States. In so refusing, however, the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Cardozo, was careful to emphasize that

immunities that are valid as against the federal government by force of the specific pledges of particular amendments have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and thus, through the Fourteenth Amendment, become valid as against the states,

and that guarantees "in their origin . . . effective against the federal government alone" had, by prior cases,

been taken over from the earlier articles of the federal bill of rights and brought within the Fourteenth Amendment by a process of absorption.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

302 U.S. at 323, 325, 326.

We accept Betts v. Brady's assumption, based as it was on our prior cases, that a provision of the Bill of Rights which is "fundamental and essential to a fair trial" is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. We think the Court in Betts was wrong, however, in concluding that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is not one of these fundamental rights. Ten years before Betts v. Brady, this Court, after full consideration of all the historical data examined in Betts, had unequivocally declared that "the right to the aid of [p343] counsel is of this fundamental character." Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68 (1932). While the Court, at the close of its Powell opinion, did, by its language, as this Court frequently does, limit its holding to the particular facts and circumstances of that case, its conclusions about the fundamental nature of the right to counsel are unmistakable. Several years later, in 1936, the Court reemphasized what it had said about the fundamental nature of the right to counsel in this language:

We concluded that certain fundamental rights, safeguarded by the first eight amendments against federal action, were also safeguarded against state action by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and among them the fundamental right of the accused to the aid of counsel in a criminal prosecution.

Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 243-244 (1936). And again, in 1938, this Court said:

[The assistance of counsel] is one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment deemed necessary to insure fundamental human rights of life and liberty. . . . The Sixth Amendment stands as a constant admonition that, if the constitutional safeguards it provides be lost, justice will not "still be done."

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 462 (1938). To the same effect, see Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444 (1940), and Smith v. O'Grady, 312 U.S. 329 (1941). In light of these and many other prior decisions of this Court, it is not surprising that the Betts Court, when faced with the contention that "one charged with crime, who is unable to obtain counsel, must be furnished counsel by the State," conceded that "[e]xpressions in the opinions of this court lend color to the argument. . . ." 316 U.S. at 462-463. The fact is that, in deciding as it did -- that "appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, [p344] essential to a fair trial" -- the Court in Betts v. Brady made an abrupt break with its own well considered precedents. In returning to these old precedents, sounder, we believe, than the new, we but restore constitutional principles established to achieve a fair system of justice. Not only these precedents, but also reason and reflection, require us to recognize that, in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public's interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defenses. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. A defendant's need for a lawyer is nowhere better stated than in the moving words of Mr. Justice Sutherland in Powell v. Alabama:

The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be [p345] heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.

287 U.S. at 68-69. The Court in Betts v. Brady departed from the sound wisdom upon which the Court's holding in Powell v. Alabama rested. Florida, supported by two other States, has asked that Betts v. Brady be left intact. Twenty-two States, as friends of the Court, argue that Betts was "an anachronism when handed down," and that it should now be overruled. We agree.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further action not inconsistent with this opinion.


  1. Later, in the petition for habeas corpus, signed and apparently prepared by petitioner himself, he stated, "I, Clarence Earl Gideon, claim that I was denied the rights of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments of the Bill of Rights."

  2. Of the many such cases to reach this Court, recent examples are Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962); Hudson v. North Carolina, 363 U.S. 697 (1960); Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155 (1957). Illustrative cases in the state courts are Artrip v. State, 136 So.2d 574 (Ct.App.Ala.1962); Shafer v. Warden, 211 Md. 635, 126 A.2d 573 (1956). For examples of commentary, see Allen, The Supreme Court, Federalism, and State Systems of Criminal Justice, 8 De Paul L.Rev. 213 (1959); Kamisar, The Right to Counsel and the Fourteenth Amendment: A Dialogue on "The Most Pervasive Right" of an Accused, 30 U. of Chi.L.Rev. 1 (1962); The Right to Counsel, 45 Minn.L.Rev. 693 (1961).

  3. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938).

  4. E.g., Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925) (speech and press); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450 (1938) (speech and press); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 321 (1958) (speech); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936) (press); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (religion); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 (1937) (assembly); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 486, 488 (1960) (association); Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U.S. 293, 296 (1961) (association); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) (speech, assembly, petition for redress of grievances).

  5. E.g., Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 235-241 (1897); Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 522-526 (1898).

  6. E.g., Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27-28 (1949); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 213 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961).

  7. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666 (1962).


[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

You are right you can now own guns in Chicago. Thank goodness.

So, I guess e'll have to agree to disagree. I doubt we'll come to terms on guns. So I bid you a good night.

Oh, One last thing. Ted Nugent lives only a few miles from me. I've never met the man, but you have to admit he's entertaining if nothing else. Except I don't listen to his type music..

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

good comment.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

And I'm never buying a license in NY, either. It's just a tax grab.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Hell, yeah. I hope you don't either. It will be way funner if you don't.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Hell yea...