our president

[gixxerboy1]

Theyare trying to ban anything that can hold a clip. Very scary. They are NOT only going after the assault rifles they are constantly talking about. This means potentially banning everything with the acception of bolt action rifles and revolvers. With the current owners there will be grandfathering but you will not be able to pass your guns along as family airlooms. Everyone should do their homework, this is a big deal guys. It is our second amendment. All the people attempting the ban are protected daily by armed men. Why should we not be able I protect ourselves

where has anyone said that?


not to mention the government admits they cant round up the illegal immigrants. You really think they are going to come and round up your guns? Please use some common sense. Instead of the fear mongering BS

[thegodfather]

where has anyone said that?


not to mention the government admits they cant round up the illegal immigrants. You really think they are going to come and round up your guns? Please use some common sense. Instead of the fear mongering BS

It's fear mongering BS when someone says they're going to come take your guns...But, conversely, its NOT fear mongering BS when Piers Morgan and the others on the left say that you dont care about children being killed when you disagree with their policy positions? It's not fear mongering BS when the news (CNN specifically) reports "Bodies of children at Sandy Hook shot multiple times," as if that somehow has any relevance to the story, and is in any way news worthy. Of course its not news worthy, it serves no purpose other then to cause shock value, and now they are even discussing releasing photos of the dead children, with no value to the news, other than to serve a left wing agenda towards denying law abiding citizens the right to certain firearms.

I'm sick of these people getting on the TV and saying they "respect the 2nd amendment," and even better is when Piers Morgan says "I respect the right of Americans to own a gun and protect themselves in their homes." He makes a point of delineating the 'in their homes' part, because he clearly does not believe that people have the right to defend themselves outside of their homes, where the majority of violent crime happens. He was accused earlier this week of standing on the graves of the dead children at Sandy Hook, and I think thats an accurate assessment, he is exploiting that tradegedy for ratings, and to advance his own political agenda. This guy is little more then a disgraced tabloid man who got caught up in the phone hacking scandal in the UK and had to come over to this side of the pond, the fact he was given a show on CNN is disgraceful. With regards to WHY "anyone" would need to own an AR-15, for starters, because it's a right guaranteed to us in the constitution, and because additionally its covered under property rights, it is a piece of property.

Yes the second amendments true purpose designed by the founders is as a last and final check&balance against the power of government, in the rare, unlikely case that it would become tyrannical. However, aside from that, it has another useful purpose, that of self-defense, an inalienable right bestowed upon people by God. Theres absolutely no concievable reason that a law abiding person who has passed all of the necessary tests, background checks, and paperwork should not be able to carry their firearm on or about their person wherever they go outside of their home, for the purposes of lawful self defense. The idea advanced by the left, that EVERYONE will be armed, and that shootouts will occur over cutting in line at the movies, or over parking spots, or other such trivial disagreements of daily life will then lead to shootouts is unfounded. It is unfounded for several reasons, not the least of which is the statistics of "Shall Issue" conceal&carry states showing that such instances did NOT come to fruition, and the number of licensed conceal&carry holders to use their firearms in a manner not consistent with the law is far below 1% of all CCW permit holders. Adding to the evidence of why this idea is unfounded, is the fact that in any of the 42 states where "SHALL ISSUE" conceal&carry permits have been on the books for well over a decade, only about 1%-1.5% of the entire population of the state decides to exercise that right and go through the processes of obtaining a conceal&carry permit. This means in a state with 10,000,000 (10 million) people, only 100,000-150,000 people have the ability to conceal&carry legally, and of those permit holders, no data exists that shows what percentage of them are carrying their firearms on a daily basis, but clearly every single permit holder is not carrying their firearm every waking moment, further debunking the idea that society will be fiilled with people carrying guns all around you. All that we ask, is that those 1%-1.5% of people who are ALREADY permitted by law to conceal&carry their firearms in any number of places throughout their state, be allowed to carry their firears into movie theaters, restaurants, shopping malls, and any other places designated as 'gun free zones,' so that they at least have some fighting chance at stopping the tragedies we've had to endure over the past 6-8 months.

No one is contending that the tradgedies would be averted in EVERY instance, just that there is a CHANCE that they could be mitigated, and in some instances stopped. And isn't a CHANCE better then NONE at all? Where the victims are consigned to the fate that their attacker assigns them, when they can do little more then dial a phone, curl up, and pray that the attacker spares their life, or has poor aim? I for one, would like to have my own fate in my hands, and not let a crazed lunatic DECIDE FOR ME. "I would much rather have a GUN in my hand, then a phone with the Police on the other end."

[gixxerboy1]

It's fear mongering BS when someone says they're going to come take your guns...But, conversely, its NOT fear mongering BS when Piers Morgan and the others on the left say that you dont care about children being killed when you disagree with their policy positions? It's not fear mongering BS when the news (CNN specifically) reports "Bodies of children at Sandy Hook shot multiple times," as if that somehow has any relevance to the story, and is in any way news worthy. Of course its not news worthy, it serves no purpose other then to cause shock value, and now they are even discussing releasing photos of the dead children, with no value to the news, other than to serve a left wing agenda towards denying law abiding citizens the right to certain firearms.

I'm sick of these people getting on the TV and saying they "respect the 2nd amendment," and even better is when Piers Morgan says "I respect the right of Americans to own a gun and protect themselves in their homes." He makes a point of delineating the 'in their homes' part, because he clearly does not believe that people have the right to defend themselves outside of their homes, where the majority of violent crime happens. He was accused earlier this week of standing on the graves of the dead children at Sandy Hook, and I think thats an accurate assessment, he is exploiting that tradegedy for ratings, and to advance his own political agenda. This guy is little more then a disgraced tabloid man who got caught up in the phone hacking scandal in the UK and had to come over to this side of the pond, the fact he was given a show on CNN is disgraceful. With regards to WHY "anyone" would need to own an AR-15, for starters, because it's a right guaranteed to us in the constitution, and because additionally its covered under property rights, it is a piece of property.

Yes the second amendments true purpose designed by the founders is as a last and final check&balance against the power of government, in the rare, unlikely case that it would become tyrannical. However, aside from that, it has another useful purpose, that of self-defense, an inalienable right bestowed upon people by God. Theres absolutely no concievable reason that a law abiding person who has passed all of the necessary tests, background checks, and paperwork should not be able to carry their firearm on or about their person wherever they go outside of their home, for the purposes of lawful self defense. The idea advanced by the left, that EVERYONE will be armed, and that shootouts will occur over cutting in line at the movies, or over parking spots, or other such trivial disagreements of daily life will then lead to shootouts is unfounded. It is unfounded for several reasons, not the least of which is the statistics of "Shall Issue" conceal&carry states showing that such instances did NOT come to fruition, and the number of licensed conceal&carry holders to use their firearms in a manner not consistent with the law is far below 1% of all CCW permit holders. Adding to the evidence of why this idea is unfounded, is the fact that in any of the 42 states where "SHALL ISSUE" conceal&carry permits have been on the books for well over a decade, only about 1%-1.5% of the entire population of the state decides to exercise that right and go through the processes of obtaining a conceal&carry permit. This means in a state with 10,000,000 (10 million) people, only 100,000-150,000 people have the ability to conceal&carry legally, and of those permit holders, no data exists that shows what percentage of them are carrying their firearms on a daily basis, but clearly every single permit holder is not carrying their firearm every waking moment, further debunking the idea that society will be fiilled with people carrying guns all around you. All that we ask, is that those 1%-1.5% of people who are ALREADY permitted by law to conceal&carry their firearms in any number of places throughout their state, be allowed to carry their firears into movie theaters, restaurants, shopping malls, and any other places designated as 'gun free zones,' so that they at least have some fighting chance at stopping the tragedies we've had to endure over the past 6-8 months.

No one is contending that the tradgedies would be averted in EVERY instance, just that there is a CHANCE that they could be mitigated, and in some instances stopped. And isn't a CHANCE better then NONE at all? Where the victims are consigned to the fate that their attacker assigns them, when they can do little more then dial a phone, curl up, and pray that the attacker spares their life, or has poor aim? I for one, would like to have my own fate in my hands, and not let a crazed lunatic DECIDE FOR ME. "I would much rather have a GUN in my hand, then a phone with the Police on the other end."

I wouldn't call that fear mongering but manipulation/ using. either way there are people on both sides that are wrong. I dont disagree.

Since you studied the Constitution i want your opinion on this. Especially since you bring it up allot. That the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from a the government. I saw an interview with a "Constitutional Scholar" and they were saying that is not the reason for the 2nd amendment. Its for a well regulated militia to assist the government in case of an invasion