What I think of Anti-Gun Advocates...

Mar 4th 2007, by Guest
I share your feelings. I recently aquired my CHL and it seems they make it difficult on purpose. So what can we do to protect our rights? I know about the big organizations NRA ect. Is there something else I don't know about? What can I do.

Mar 4th 2007, by JohnQPublik
I applaud you, sir, on your well-cited and clear article. I too share your sense of reality and believe that there is a larger agenda than just "gun control." When a nation's citizenry is disarmed they become a nation of victims of tyranny and opression. Case in point: Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, Philippines during Marcos, to mention a few. A more domestic example: Washington D.C. (well known murder "capital") and the Peoples Republic of California- where guns are practically outlawed yet they are world famous for their legendary armed gang epidemic. What can we do, who are concerned? We keep on. Keep on openning our collective "big mouths" to keep America free or until they exterminate every last one of us.
--

Mar 5th 2007, by Steve
The Government is us.. If we complain about it, we are complaining about
our neglect of it....

The VOTE is our Shield and our pen is our sword. Become involved in searching out voting records of you representatives, let them know if you approve or disapprove of their stance on issues. If they fail to work for you, fire them at the poles... Join the Many Organizations who defend the Constitutional rights to bear arms.
go to my webpage here to see links to these organizations: http://w7sav.net/Target%20Range.htm . Once you join in these groups you will be kept up to date on Bills being moved to through congress intent on taking more gun ownership rights away, giving you a chance to tell your representative ahead of time how you want them to oppose or support any bills concerning gun control.... In short, take the time to get involved... To remain a silent majority is to be walked on...
Those at work to take away our rights are working hard to do so... Just a little effort on each of our part of the silent majority can stop them dead in their tracks...
--

Mar 5th 2007, by Steve
A Further point I should make is that Liberals know Gun Control does not work. They know only law abiding Citizens will comply with gun control.. Liberals goal is to disarm the Law abiding citizen, not the criminal.. They only use Children's gun accident deaths and firearm violence as an excuse to enact gun control laws... There real goal is to move the nation as a whole toward Communism... An Armed citizenry is not compatible with Communism..
And also note that religion and Communism do not mix well.. Could that be why Liberals attack religion with the same fervor as controlling gun ownership...
--

Mar 5th 2007, by Admin
Also remember that politicians on both sides will trample our second amendment rights if they can get votes from it. There are other parties such as The Constitution Party www.constitutionparty.com that has the defense of second amendment rights in their platform, not only as just a position they hold, but as a conviction. If a politician doesn't hold the second amendment as a conviction, it will take very little persuasion for them to betray it.
--

Mar 5th 2007, by Steve
Yes, as an independent voter the Constitution Party is a VERY good choice for support...
--

Mar 7th 2007, by Guest
This was an very good article and i agree 100 percent with what was said. Families do need guns becuase that is one of the only ways you can protect yourself. Gun control is a bad idea. Far more people die with it. It may be hard to beleive but it is true. Great article.

Apr 4th 2007, by Guest
Like Charleton Heston Said, " They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands". Join the NRA even if you don't own a gun. They will keep you abreast on what the Liberals (aka Communists) are up to in this Country. The subscription is inexpensive and the information is extremely informitive. Anyone who carea about the rights of the individual, (unlike the what's good for me is good for you liberals) in this country should look into this.

Apr 10th 2007, by Guest
Those liberal (aka communists) are not looking o strip the country of their right to bear arms. Please remember that the second amendment guarantees the state militia the right to bear arms. Not the general public. If you don't believe then please take a look at the actual text of the amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people..." (US Constitution). The Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that by the term regulated militia meant the National Guard, hardly the populace. In fact one of the only court rulings that resulted in the decision granting the defendant the right to bear arms was unable to cite any precedent. I am talking about the Ruling in US V. Emerson where US District Judge Cumming ruled that under the second amendment guaranteed the right of the individual to bear arms. In his following judicial opinion he was unable to cite any precedent stating likewise. His decision is considered a renegade decision considering that it goes in the face of continual rulings against that matter.

Now in writing this I am not saying that a person should not be able to defend him or herself with a firearm. Much the contrary I believe it is a rite. However those individuas should be heavily screened and should be required to go through the proper training prior to purchasing a gun. And at Gun shows all individuals should be subject to a background check on a state and federal level. States like PA and TX do not require this and it is simple measures like these that can prevent criminals from acquiring these weapons. Personally I am afraid of the knowledge that criminals are walking the streets aquiring these weapons second hand so easily. I live in Philadelphia PA and I know of a few places where individuals can go to purchase these weapons without a background check or proper registration. The homoicide rate in Philadelphia from 2006 is the most it has been a long while. Victims of these homicides were mostly friearms related. 2004 was the total count for 2006. 895 of those homicides resulted in victims age 18-25. I am in that age range. I have a 45% chance of being shot in the city of Philadelphia. Restriction and regulation on a federal scale are not communistic measures and the measure currently in place though leniently applied are completely reasonable. When dealing in weapons that have the potential to kill on a grand scale any restrictions I believe are perfectly reasonable. By the way a bat works just as well as a gun when defending the family. So do knives. Both can be stored close to or under a bed. And as far as the point about more chidren dying in school or from football goes. Those are necessary hazards of life. Guns in the household, unnecessary. Every family does not need to own a gun. Children are required to go to school. Guns are a luxury for protection, far from a necessity. If you want to find out what the liberals (communists) are really saying my friends check out www.bradycampaign.org and search around a bit and see how the spinsters you're talking about only correct the spinsters of the NRA and the gun lobby in the US. Take the time to learn the facts from both sides of the argument before deciding on the facts of an article as blatantly biased article as this. I've seen eopisodes of the O'Reilly factor less partisan than this article. Facts are out there legit and spun, giev the legit ones a chance before relying on the pun ones alone.

Apr 17th 2007, by Guest
The US is not a particularly crime ridden country, its average for industrialised nations. What is different that crime is far more likely to be lethal than in other countries.

Apr 17th 2007, by Guest
Yes, how great to have guns. You can just go and shoot 33 people. Do you all look at that side of the story too..?

Apr 20th 2007, by Guest
I knew a Liberal Anti gun advocate would use the Horrific tragedy at Virgina Tech as an excuse to start in again about gun control, it never fails... The GUN did not walk in there and shoot anyone. Some ONE was behind the GUN pulling the TRIGGER... Lets HELP those who are on the edge of this behavior BEFORE it happens... Check for yourself.. IF one thing is evident. These people telegraph ahead of time that they are having problems.. Who Listened?

Apr 20th 2007, by Guest
Why is it that as gun control laws become stricter in an area. The Crime rate goes UP?
When you find the answer. Please tell it to our politicians in Australia...

Apr 20th 2007, by Guest
Armed Criminals prefer guns. Are ya going to bring a bat or knife to a gun fight? Oh, by the way, I'm sure our forefathers who wrote the constitution only ment for the National Guard to have a right to weapons. I'm sure they all gave no thought to the civilians having any rights in owning a weapon. See I feel that the interpetation of the 2nd amendment is directly related to who is interpting it. "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 interpitation of the 2nd ammendment is argued. To me it says:

( A Governments [states] need to have an Army to protect its people does not take away the right of the people themselves to be armed.) Now don't you really think this is what our forefathers were saying.. Just because a liberal court rules one way does not change the intent of the writers.. It just means we have to live with the ruling until another ruling is made.. the intent never changes...

Apr 20th 2007, by Guest
Yes, the writer above in defending Gun Control for got to finish the second amendment, here I'll help you, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

Jun 16th 2007, by Guest
how about if your child get killd in the street from the gun street would you have the same opinion? i'm a parent whose son died from the gun 9 month ago. i hate guns, I hate them who love guns

Jun 17th 2007, by SteveV
I'm sorry about your child. The gun did not kill your child and you know that full well. The idiot who held it, pointed it, and squeezed the trigger is the one to blame. That's why I also am in favor of increased penalties for using anything as a
weapon in the commission of a crime up and including the DEATH SENTENCE..... Outlawing things have not nor will they ever stop people from using them if their intent is evil, they will find a source to obtain it. PERIOD... ONLY those who follow the law will abide by it... Again, sorry for your loss. More children die in America playing football than are killed by people with guns.. Just a fact... Should we ban sports and what else is next?
--

Jun 17th 2007, by Guest
To the person who lost their child, Sorry..
But I have to ask did you actually read this article? Have you checked out the information for accuracy? When is the last time you have heard a news report about a citizen stopping an assault with a gun? Have you actually checked on how many School, Mall, Neighborhood shootings have been stopped by a citizen with a gun. Check out the info, see how many children and adults are alive and well today do to being saved by a citizen with a gun. Do the research, it's easy to react it's harder to get educated and accept what is fact. As stated in the article you WILL NOT GET THE FACTS from the liberal media, think I'm making it up, here is just one example:

It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn't Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell. It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to "come get me". The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.
Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle. Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was Physically attacked. But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

You wouldn't know much about that though. Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students were now armed didn't get a mention.

James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: "A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed." This 2002 article noted "This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage." But the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.

Jun 17th 2007, by Guest
“We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission”.
United States Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe”.
United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

“If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!”
Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-CA)

Can you believe these are Americans talking? Do these people truly believe the crap they are vomiting up? They actually think criminals and those who wish to get a gun will not be able to? Like they could not get booze during Prohibition days? And these people took an oath to uphold the constitution?

What American would not fight to protect their rights? We have lost to many patriots in defending these rights
to just give them away, these liberals just don't get it, do they?

Jul 25th 2007, by Guest
A simple truth that is just as accurate today as it was at the beginning of our country.

The number of gun owners in the U.S. is approximately. 80,000,000

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." George Washington (Address to 1st session of Congress)
Do you really think these men only wanted a Militia to have the right to bear arms when they wrote the 2nd amendment?

Nov 23rd 2007, by Guest
November 23 2007, by guest
Who do those communists think they are, trying to take my second amendment right away?

Nov 23rd 2007, by Guest
November 23 2007, by guest
God bless America, and God bless James Madison

Dec 17th 2007, by Guest
To the Apr 10th 2007 Guest writer above. You cannot have it both ways. Out of one side of your mouth you say you are in favor of right to bear arms while giving every liberal view of the 2nd amendment as to why one does not have a right to bear arms. You left out the part about in the 2nd amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Oh was that a liberal slip up? The guest writer on Jul 25th 2007 above put it well with the Washington quote to the 1st congress... You continue with a long laundry list of conditions for citizen to meet before being able to have a right to bear arms. Do you also have such a list for lets say the 1st Amendment on free speech before a citizen can speak his views legally.. A right is a right unlike a drivers license that is a privilege.. So you can not have it both ways..

Dec 17th 2007, by Guest
I will take this one step further than the guest writer above me. Once a criminal pays his debt to society,why can't he again own a gun? Why is it that someone who has had domestic violence in their past be denied the right to own a Gun? These rules were not present in our history.. In our past, a man getting out of prison was often given his own guns back... Just a thought, is this a right as set forth in the 2nd amendment or is it a privilege as noted above? We all know that liberals often do this with rights, they want to put conditions on them.
In liberal colleges, Conservative speakers are often heckled and threatened, I guess free speech has conditions in liberal colleges...

Feb 17th 2008, by Guest
I believe the writers of the constitution were people who could see into the future and what kinds of things would be tried to diminish ones freedoms. The second amendment is written in a way that future opponents could NOT use an armed Military or militia as a reason that citizens did not need to be armed. They knew that sometime government leaders would attempt to disarm the public siting protection being provided by government agencies. They knew this as a starting point to a totalitarian government.
The second amendment acknowledges the need for a armed militia, but goes on to state that having this is not an excuse to disarm the public.. Liberals would have you believe that the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" means those who make up the militia, not the public at large. Wrong...

Mar 3rd 2008, by Guest
I think every able bodied man and woman over 18 should be required to undergo training in firearms and also be required to pack a concealed weapon. Think about a trained armed populous. Be honest, what do you think would happen to our crime rate. I for one would feel much safer knowing that law abiding citizens were armed and trained. Could you imagine a drive by shooting where all witnesses returned fire on the vehicle involved in the drive by. Could you imagine a hold up where not only the teller but all patrons pulled weapons on the perpetrator? We are slowly loosing our freedoms to criminals who force us to stay locked in our homes and cars because of their freedom to attack us without fear of retribution. We are the ones in lock up while they are armed and free... Who turned this world upside down any way.

Apr 28th 2008, by Guest
Far more people including kids are killed by drunk drivers in horrific accidents than with guns. We learned that prohibition does not work, we have also learned that making the consequences of driving drunk increasingly more severe has slowed the death rate from drunk driving in proportion to the increase penalties. And that is what we need to do with guns. Make the penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime so high that it begins to curb its use. 99 percent of weapons owned by citizens by their silence prove they are in safe and sane hands, we only need to deal with the 1% who use guns for illegal purposes. Prohibition against guns will not remove the guns from the 1% but will from the 99% who did nothing to warrant their loosing the use of their guns for peaceful and protective purposes. Face it, the gun totting criminals have forced us to lock ourselves in our homes and cars while they run free. We are the ones who are being asked to give up our guns and stay in lock up. While the Criminals will always have guns to carry out their trade.

Jun 1st 2008, by Guest
Oh, has any body noticed that in Britain the death rate from stabbings are now starting to climb. And about 80% of juveniles carry a knife. Guess what? They are now debating on how to control this, betcha they outlaw knives just like they did guns. Hmmm I wonder what will be next..

Jul 1st 2008, by Guest
Hallelujah, because of people like the one who wrote this article and many others, Unconstitutional laws as was set up in Washington DC was successfully challenged in the Supreme Court and won. Not only does an Individual have the RIGHT to bear arms but it was ruled that Mandatory Trigger Locks are also unconstitutional. Hooray !!!

Now the real work begins. We must tear down the liberal red tape and bureaucratic hoops a citizen has to go through to own a gun, it is no longer a privilege as liberals would have you believe, "having to qualify for gun ownership". It is like any other RIGHT. Yours for the taking, does not have to be rented, leased, earned or any other infringement.

Jul 19th 2008, by Steve
Now that the Supreme Court has cleared the smoke (put out by Liberals) on who's RIGHT it is to bear arms opens the obvious next step. All states and Communities will have to rethink the right to carry openly or concealed. As this is a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Any pre-requirements to do so could be considered an infringement. If a citizen passes a criminal background check in order to purchase a weapon, why should they have to jump through any further hoops to carry that same weapon? Being a non-felon and citizen would seem to me to be enough requirement to bear arms. Verbalizations can cause death of self or others, yet the free speech RIGHT does not require ones pre- qualification to express ones views. RIGHTS are not privileges to be earned. That is the foundation of RIGHTS, they are FREE TO CITIZENS until a Citizen abuses its use. Then the citizen can be held civilly or criminally liable for their misuse of the right. Because some Citizen abuse the use of their rights gives no one the the right if you will to restrict,infringe the use of these same RIGHTS by other Citizens
--