Yeah they tried that once, The Revolutionary War ring a bell............

I'm sure criminals would follow laws if you were king.....The majority of these most recent mass shootings have been by mentally ill people who gained possession of firearms that are not theirs. I'm Pro 2nd amendment and an avid hunter however I believe that people (family members/friends) need to do more to keep their legally owned weapons out of the hands of those not responsible enough to have access to them.

Let me get this straight, so your right to life transcends my right to own an arsenal. Well by that logic my right to property should supersede your right to speech. Since people like you and the ideas you spread are a direct threat to my personal property (yes I am referring to the idea of natural rights) then you should not have a right to say anything that may potentially effect my owning something. Why do you even care? Seriously, if you do not own a firearm and do not wish to own one, fine, I do not care live your life the way you see fit. When you try and take my rights away when I have done nothing to warrant such an attack, then we have a problem.

By your logic I should be allowed to take away your right to free speech since my right to property, which is also a natural right up there with life, is directly effected by the things you say and convince others to say. Why do you even care? If you do not want to own a gun then do not own one. Live your life the way you want to and I will live my life the way I want to. Well regulated militia at the time of the drafting meant any able bodied male. It was not a formal thing it was an average citizen who heard a call and grabbed his gun and went to fight. Technically we are all "the well regulated militia" by that standard. Finally, I believe that the second is of equal importance to the first, it was put there for a reason. Just like a slave cannot speak freely, a slave cannot own a gun. This country was founded on the idea of a free, individualistic, society. Think about what you are saying, think hard, because many men and women have fought and died for the very right you would have destroyed and the very right you utilize now, some of those were my friends. You can say patriotism is for scoundrels all you want, but then what does that make those who would not risk their life for what they believe in? I say those are the people who sit back and let better men then themselves carry them, those are the people who are truly pitiful because when the world throws them bad situations, all the can do is hope that a better man will have their back.

"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."

What would you like explanation on, with this Tdolce?

You seem to understand the second part and have even said if you were king you'd get rid of it. Fortunately the constitution was written for our republic to protect American citizens from exactly that, tyrannical leaders that would make tyrannical/arrogant decisions like you've stated you would. The first part was to secure the states right to have its own militia and rise up against the federal government if they ever became tyrannical, and the second to secure the individuals rights to rise up against the state or federal government if either were tyrannical or oppressive.

Naive people usually say they'd pick and choose different parts or amendments to the constitution to edit or remove. What this shows is your arrogance in thinking you know what is best for everyone else. Fortunately our framers were not this way and as a whole they promoted democracy with the protections of a republic through our constitution and bill of rights.

Through your naivety, you fail to realize that your second amendment is a guarantor of your first amendment. Do you think the first amendment should be removed? I saw your "right to life" comment, I'd be interested in your view on other subjects surrounding right to life.

The definition of the militia back then was "able bodied males between the age of 18 and 45" So that would mean no guns for women, old farts, fatties and gimps.

I'm not sure how to reply to this, because the majority of this comment doesn't have to do with anything that's been spoken about and is lacking the necessary segways for it to make sense. But I'll do my best.

First you are going to have to pull the liberal IV out of your arm and then look at facts. Your argument about someone setting a gun down and a child getting a hold of it is a red herring. With that logic, the police should also be disarmed because they could do the same thing. That is a ridiculous argument.

The NRA is not a gun manufacturer, but I'm sure gun manufacturers donate money to them. As far as the sanctity of life, I'd like to hear your stance on abortion before I give that statement any credit. Most liberals are very hypocritcal and I'm interested to see if you are one of them.

Onto the facts, the only answer to criminals with guns is absolutely having law abiding citizens with guns. If you look at any major city that has restricted or banned hand guns, you'll see an increase in gun related crime, or a decrease that was lower than the national average (aka net increase). All of that is numerical fact, I can post up proof/links but you'll dismiss it because you are making decisions with your emotions and only looking for data that would support your emotions, instead of looking at facts first and then forming an opinion. I think it is better that you investigate it on your own, instead of just taking my word for it.

Rothschild is 100% accurate in his response, I'm not sure why this cause you to describe him as pompous, but I can speculate it's because deep down you also know he is correct and it aggrivates you to realize that any contradicting opinion to his, is without merit.

It must be frustrating when the facts don't agree with your emotions, and the only thing you can do is try and personally attack him by calling him pompous and asking if he is testifying or preaching. If that's the best you have, he's done well.

My suggestion for you would be to realign your emotions with reality.

^ Again, knowing that you have no argument, you fabricate incorrect paraphrases such as "The Bible gives you a right to carry an AR-15". I wasn't at the hearing, but no where in this article is that mentioned. That's another red herring meant to stir up individuals who are looking for things that support their emotions, instead of looking at reality and facts and then basing an emotional response off of reality.

Carroll County is a red dot of hope in a sea of blue idiocy.

Joe,

I'm not consumed with anything but Liberty for everyone, so don't incorrectly label me. If you are looking to point the finger at ignorance, you should look into the mirror first. The teaparty's only goals were to reduce the size of the government and reduce its spending, basically to hold the federal government to the explicit duties given it via our constitution, why would anyone be against that? http://www.teapartyexpress.org/mission . I know the media has tried to attach all sorts of other causes to it, but it's really that simple. My guess is you see the constitution as an inconvenience to unconstitutional ideals, but that's too bad.

I don't know Rothschild, but from the quotes I've read he's the exact opposite of what you've described. He wants to give everyone more freedom and liberty with less government, the one fighting to control others would be you and people of like mindset to you who oppose liberty. It's actually quite a shame that the very thing you say you detest is the very thing that could be used to describe you.

I haven't read his comments on the public school system, but I can say that the federal government has no business being involved in it. Before you retort, show me in the constitution where they are granted that authority.

Aside from that, if you dislike Carroll so much, why not move? I'd be happy to help you to move free of charge.

Brad, I didn't say I disliked Carroll or want to leave. On the contrary, I love Carroll and this is why I can't stand the Tea Party idiots, because they are ruining the county and its reputation. The Tea Party is a fake movement, bought and paid for by financial interests who needed people stupid enough to vote against their own interests. It stands for nothing but hating government and hating all regulation...it merely exists in the shadow of a now minority Republican party like a cancer, eating away at us. It represents the most extreme intolerant people in America, who indeed would seek to control things in order to force the country into accepting their ideals. Libertarians like you pretend to understand exactly what the founding fathers intended, when you really have no idea. You use literal interpretations of selected passages of the Constitution to support your value system, much the way fundamentalists do with the Bible. The Constitution is not a static document. It is a "living" document and it has and will be amended. Many of the founding fathers also owned slaves and they fought with muskets, not AK-47's. They did not walk on water. It is not 1776 and the American Revolution was fought over 200 years ago for reasons nothing like today. You don't know real tyranny, trust me.

Nothing I've said is control freak, now you are trying to use the argument technique of repeating everything I say back to me, since you have no defensible position.

You do need to fit "your reality" to the facts, instead of trying to fit the facts to your desired reality. The Constitution was not designed to be "interpreted" if you mean rewritten. Obviously our judicial branch makes rulings based on the Constitution and other existing laws, but it is pretty clear and there isn't a whole lot of interpretation needed if you aren't trying to manipulate it.

Back to your poor attempt at character assassination. At what point have I tried to control anything, let alone "control freak city" ? How about you prove those claims? I've shot down everyone lie you've stated and you've came back with more lies, how about you start supporting them? Liberty equals less control for everyone and that's what I would like.

The Old Republican party was fine by me, even if I thought that Reagan's supply side economics fiscal policies were proved to be a colassal failure. Our values got hijacked by W's business crowd and then by the Tea Party out of a backlash against W's stupidity. Now folks like Karl Rove want to cut the Tea Party off at the knees. I agree that we need a completely fresh start, but I shudder to think of Rove, Rush, the Tea Party or the Libertarians being the core of it. First it needs to appeal to moderate women and be inclusive of African Americans and hispanics. It can't have the NRA, the big banks, Wall Street, religious fanatics or people like the Koch Bros controlling its agenda...and sadly, it can't look anything like the angry white guy party that it is today. Your idealism around freedom and liberty are all well and good, but I think a little naive We're not living in tyranny and the government is not evil. We've seen the enemy and it's us! The government is not some collective independent power, it's us. If we don't like what it's doing, we can change it. We need to get the private money out of our elections, repeal the Citizens United decision and start electing responsible representatives, who are not in the pockets of special interests. They must be accountable for making progress on issues, not feathering their nests or being idealogues. We need to bring back compromise, as there is no absolute right and wrong..both parties are nuts in this regard!

Read the first sentence under the "Actions" section, you can't join it or respond to it, if you have founded it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomWorks
Lots of people tried to jump on the band wagon and prop it up including Fox News, just like the liberal media tried to do the opposite and demonize it, that's irrelevant. The cause was what I stated, spurred on by the bail outs by both administrations and congress.

I don't think the Libertarians are crazy and from experience, I find them generally more educated about our system of government, its historical documents and American history, in general, than most liberals. It doesn't mean however, that I agree with their stances on taxes, foreign policy, healthcare, education or most of the things that they fight, if not explicitly addressed by the Constitution. I'm not l a fan of liberals either, especially those who borrow talking points and sound bites from the media instead of researching things themselves to find out that the truth is somewhere in the middle. This often makes them just as guilty as the nuts on the right of being manipulated by those with an agenda. I think you are right about the Republican party needing a new start and sadly only after it completely becomes irrelevant. The change I was referring to was actually in government, not party politics, which I think is too corrupted to be fixed. Understand that I have the same contempt for O'Malley, Milller & Busch that I have for the Tea Party and Bush era Republicans. They all continue to put politics above getting things done and use their majorities to bludgeon everyone to their political will, instead of doing what's in the best interest of everyone they were elected to serve. Same thing here in Carroll...the nuts only care about the other nuts and scoring points with their most conservative supporters...that's not what leaders do, that's what political hacks do.

Brad, Brad, Brad......you are so Fuunnny! First off, you don't know any of us at all, so, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Second, if a white president were elected, there would be no tea party...why do I say that? Where were you "patriots" when Bush jr. was starting a series of neo con wars....unfunded, bankrupting the country, by the way. The cost of the wars were not included in the budget. Did you know that?? Third: With your fanatical pseudo patriotism, do you have any life beyond Patch??
I don't know anything about you, except that I vehemently disagree with you on this forum.

You can't say GW was worse then Carter, come on. You also can't say I have a lot to learn when I've spent half my posts here correcting you, I'm not right wing either because Libertarians are moderate and left on some issues and I haven't been brain washed or I wouldn't be outside of the 2 parties, I'd be beating the drums defending GW, but none of that is true. That last sentence is just ridiculous, I'm really not sure what is wrong with you (no disrespect indended) but almost everything you state as a fact is wrong.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/military-veterans-ages-tend-republican.aspx
I can respect your life experience, but your tendency to state incorrect opinion as fact overwhelms it. I wasn't around in the Vietnam era, but I'm guessing that war was as pointless as Iraq.

I would love to continue our dialog, but at least to me the honor of verifying the things the liberal media is telling you, before typing them here as fact. A few examples from this conversation would be the facts surrounding the Tea party and the latest comment about which party makes up more of the military. Patch doesn't give you that many characters to type and I don't like wasting them on having to correct these misstatements. And enough with the precanned arguments or talking points that you've had with other R's, those don't work on me and I don't fit whatever mold you are used to having discussions with.

"Because the problem with young republicans is that you guys talk a good game but don't have the balls to stand up and fight for your country."
^ This is a statement about who is in the military, don't waste my time or site bandwidth trying to back pedal out of it

This is only true in the close minded world that you live in and it's insane actually. If there were only right and left, you would never have swing votes because those people would have to choose right or left as you've stated. Their opinion wouldn't be able to be "swung" one way or the other based on that years election events.

Anyway, the large majority of the media is liberal. I can't understand what reality you are living in if you think only 10% of the media is liberal? Are you telling me that CNN and MSNBC are conservative and Republican? Is Hollywood also very (majority) conservative and Republican? Maybe you are so liberal those groups are conservative to you? It appears to drive you nuts that you can't shoehorn me into a talking point you've seen on the Huffington Post but that's too bad, Libertarian is my choice.

GW's blunders have been far eclipsed by President Obama's blunders. He's done a few good things, but far more bad things. By chance do you have an independence card?

Nope, I've seen more personal expense and more loss of freedom under O's administration, then under W's. He has done a few things worth commending though.

So which branch of the military did you serve in? And who sent you over there, Johnson or Nixon?

Tom, you also are missing the point and would have to follow your own advice about getting away from the Huffington Post.

An Ar15 is not a military weapon, it looks scary to those ignorant about guns and that's about it. Nothing else matters as the second ammendment guarantees that law abiding citizens can't be penalized because of non law abiding citizens.

You've already expressed your want to be a tyrannical dictator when you said "If I were king of the world I would outlaw all guns and Second Amendment tomorrow". That lust for power and control is only eclipsed by the arrogance you have when you made that statement, thinking that you should have the final say on which parts of our constitution are valid and which parts are not.

You still never answered my question, which administration sent you to Vietnam in the Army?

That's exactly it, there is no reason to not have that gun available to the general public, it's not an assault weapon, it just looks like what Hollywood inserts into the protagonist's or antagonist's hand in a battle scene. You've bought into the control freaks nonsense without doing any research of your own. Tell me why you think an Ar15 shouldn't be available to the general public? What sets that model gun apart from others?

A birth certificate doesn't make one human??? What? And lawful gun owners aren't threatening your life. I'm a lawful gun owner, how am I threatening your life? Criminals would be who is threatening your life.

I used the term properly, so you shouldn't doubt that I know it's meaning. I used it in reference to severe abuse of power and that's what it means. I don't believe your comment was a joke, I really believe that to be your wish, that's a good attempt to back pedal though.

Drawing the line is a great question. I think the distinction is between military weapons and civilian weapons. The military does not carry Ar15's, where as some police forces do. The military uses offensive weapons and the police use defensive weapons. If criminals were breaking into houses with nuclear weapon launchers, I would want one to counter with the same firepower, but they aren't so it'd be safe to say that is way past the line of civilian defense. It's really common sense.

Well fortunately for me, my life isn't defined by the level of hope you have for me.

Back to the discussion ...

Tell me why you think an Ar15 shouldn't be available to the general public?
What sets that model gun apart from others?
I'm a lawful gun owner, how am I threatening your life?

A discussion requires questions and answers on both sides, I think my questions are fair and good for the discussion, why not answer them?

There was no comment on the background check because I don't have an issue with it, I believe we agree on that, I also think that falls under common sense.

I'm glad you've finally admitted that as a law abiding gun owner, that I am not threatening your life, this is an important small step. So why would you then advocate the removal of my freedoms if I've done nothing wrong?

I read the article, and it shows its colors of ignorance very easily. The person that wrote it is so unintelligent, they can't google the fact that Adam Lanza did not use the Ar15, it was conveniently found in his vehicle. The fact that the weapon can be fired quickly is equally unintelligent. It can be fired just as quickly as a semi automatic pistol and in reality the pistol can do more damage in almost all situations that are criminal in nature. The only time the Ar15 would be better suited then a pistol would be if there was a fair amount of distance between the shooter and the target.

Are you starting to see the idiocy of the non assault weapon - assault weapon ban now?

Now that's very hypocritical since you've been throwing insults my way the entire discussion, be it about me, or my character or my beliefs. I'd prefer a clean discussion, so if you are going to hold others to that, hold yourself as well.

Hypocrisy is common and rampant with liberals, why not do something to not perpetuate the stereotype?

Many of the gun laws on the books have been watered down by the gun lobby and the cowards in congress.

The gun lobby stokes fear just to sell more guns. That's it. If there's evil on this earth, it's the crazy NRA, who could care less mass killings and what their members want. 80%+ of lawful gun owners are in favor of background checks at gun shows. Don't you think it's weird that a doctor has to pass a qualifying test to save lives, the any nut can walk into any gun show and walk out with semi automatic weapons. The bar should be higher. Background checks is one answer. In regards to being approached by a gang on the streets, stay out of those areas. Successful living does take some common sense. One is many times more likely to be shot or have someone in the house shot when there are fire arms present. Education of storing firearms is needed. I agree, mental health checks can help. Guns in the house escalate violent encounters, like domestic arguments. There's statistics. If every jew met the nazis with a gun, untrained, and frightened, they would have been killed where they stood, before being transported to their eventual horror. Jefferson called for the second amendment to be reviewed every 20 years, realizing of how quickly it could be distorted, as it is today. Another never addressed issue in the sacred, outdated second amendment is the other half about a well regulated militia........do you know of any well regulated militias? I don't.

Nope, he's actually a hero. Carroll County doesn't need the same gun laws as Chicago or Baltimore or DC ... it's different people, so I really hope he does that and nullifies the laws. We won't be the laughingstock at all, we'll be heros.

Most issues are better regulated at the local level and while I think there does have to be cooperation at all levels, aside from that I think this could be better regulated at the local level as well.

You may not agree because you want to control everyone and force them to accept your beliefs, unfortunately for you, you aren't our dictator. The difference between you and I is that I don't care what you do as long as it does not affect me, while you want to force me to live by the guidelines you see fitting, whether they affect you directly or not. This is why you and most control freaks are liberals, and why I am for liberty and a Libertarian.

Your "right to life" is only infringed when a criminal decides to infirnge on it. I am not a criminal. My guns have never got up and tried to hurt anyone. A criminal will do the same with a "six shooter" as he will with any other weapon. Be it a knife, a bat, his car or his fists. People think you can walk into a gun show and walk out with a "bushmaster", (which is a brand of firearm, not a type), with no back ground check or anything. This is not true. While there are some types of guns that are "cash and carry", the ones in question are not. In the state of MD, to buy an "AR15", you have to submit to a backgroung check, and a (7) day waiting period. This is weather it is at a gun show, a gun shop, or even a PRIVATE SALE. The sale has to go through a FFL or the MDSP. That's the law. Now why are poeple getting killed?? Because Criminals have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW. And as for the 2A as a whole, it gives the people the right to keep and bear arms not only for self protection, but to protect the Constitution itself. There is no denying that. It is written for that reason.

I addressed your right to life in my previous post. Your right to life does not supersede my right to own something, be it a gun, bat, knife or cell phone, unless they directly threaten your life and not if they could theoretically threaten your life.

You don't get to proactively restrict my freedoms just because you can theorize about a situation happening where it could one day affect you, all the while there being absolutely no proof of it ever happening.

In short, your theoretical "lightning strikes" chance, doesn't supersede my real life freedoms.

Don't be disingenuous - Jefferson said that the entire framework of Government should be revisited every generation. "The world belongs in usufruct to the living" - meaning that every generation has the right to decide how they are governed.

He never said that just a certain amendment should be revisited. And the 20 years was an approximation of a Generation.

Oh, and to answer your earlier question about a "well regulated militia"...

When the Bill of Rights was written, "well regulated" meant Practiced and Regular. The idea was that citizens not only owned arms, but knew how to effectively use them.

And Militia is clearly defined both in the writings of those who wrote the Constitution and the BOR, and in Federal law. It most certainly does not refer to the National Guard, which was formed by act of Congress around the time of WWI.

"2aSupporter! First off, sir, name calling ends the conversation."

Hypocrisy. Insulting others with like beliefs is the same thing.

How is anything in the BOR not relevant today? A Document enumerating natural rights that the government may not touch is not germane how?

Canada had to quietly do away with their gun registry after overwhelming non-compliance. They also have nothing guaranteeing the rights of citizens.

England's violent crime rate increased after their ban. Murder rate stayed the same. The police had to start carrying firearms in response to the increased violent crime. Also, the British are technically subjects, with no guarantee of any rights.

And Cuba? A country that people float away from in makeshift rafts risking drowning in hopes to get to Miami? A country where Fidel Castro and Che Guevara killed thousands after confiscating private weapons?

Our culture certainly has some problems, but none are caused by any inanimate objects.

Your hate is misdirected and incorrect. You should hate criminals, not those who want the freedom to purchase an inanimate object. It isn't a "gun culture", people who like guns are no different then people who like to collect cars and race them at the drag strip. The difference would come into play when a criminal uses a gun, but we aren't talking about criminals with these laws, as these laws affect law abiding citizens and take away their freedoms.

It's in their writings, as well as Legal Dictionaries from those days.

I recommend reading The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalist papers. They collect the debates had by the writers of these documents.

Basically - Because that's what the writers said.

Federalist Papers

Yet this is an example that you use?

Almost every home has a gun in Cuba. It's part of their culture. They also have a national registry.

i didn't flag anything. We're talking about guns, and gun violence and mass killings have dramatically decreased in England since the ban.
Re:Canada - From the RCMP: From 1970 to 1996, approximately 37,399 individuals died or were killed as a result of gun shot wounds. This accounts for an average of 1,385 deaths per year over 27 years.
Violent gun deaths in this country are 12000 with 100,000 shot! Gun registry or not (it was pitched because it was prohibitively expensive, not because it didn't work), gun violence in this country is the result of too many guns in the hands of whatever nut wants one, and that is and will always be non defensible.
The jefferson quote was paraphrased, but accurate in substance.
I'll always provide an answer, Bill. I'm waiting for you to come up with something that's not in the fox news, limbaugh, right wing nut playbook.
And I have work to do. nice talking with you.

Wait what? You're fine with removing changing or restricting this freedom, but not at the expense of other freedoms? Can you see the irony here? This is crazy talk.

No guns doesn't mean "no guns", it means no guns for the defensive law abiding citizen and guns for the offensive criminal. Do you understand this? The Utopia you speak of will never exist, ever. Look at history and grow up, thinking we could ever had that Utopia is quite immature and unrealistic.

I'm pretty sure it came from the link that was posted, which points to a Cuban website.

Anyway, it is naive, arrogant and selfish to think that you know what is best for me and that your Utopia is even remotely plausible.

Why do you feel your right to life trumps my right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness since my liberty and pursuit of happiness are not infringing your life?

This is the root issue and I would love to see a pro gun rights person answer that question.

I have asked him to cite sources and have also posted proof about the incorrect claims he made this weekend about the origins of the Teaparty and some claims about Libertarians and he did not respond.

Liberals don't usually have a lot of facts to back up their claims because they are usually based on emotion and when you call them out on that, they'll usually change the subject with distraction (a red herring) or resort to a personal attack. Expect one of those.

I actually cited 1 article. Which is 1 more than you have cited. Prove my article wrong. Don't just say it. Prove it.

As I've told you before, I'm not parroting nor am I brainwashed (and why would I hide?). If I was I'd be a Republican that defends GW to the death and as you know that is not the case.

I don't need an original idea, as I could never be better equipped to set the foundation for our country then our framers. Their ideas were based on freedom and were a reaction to the tyranny they were experiencing in England. Freedom is the only idea I need. I'm very proud of my own voice.

Ironically you've proposed just about every comment or cliche that has been stated on the Huffington Post, so I don't see you fit to tell me to find my own voice. But you can see my original concept/idea right here, I'm proud to say this was all me and I would like to see if you have an answer to that.

Why do you feel your right to life trumps my right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness since my liberty and pursuit of happiness are not infringing your life?

ZING ^^^^

You aren't implying that criminals don't follow the law, are you? : o

What zing.....it's so far off the mark, it needs a divining rod to find reality.

By reposting this, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but would really like an answer ...

Why do you feel your right to life trumps my right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness since my liberty and pursuit of happiness are not infringing your life?

Why waste my time with that? (oh wait, it's the technique of distraction)

You've read my previous post that said I do not think we should be wasting time and money in the Middle East, or Africa for that matter. And by the way Tony, which administration has us in Africa? You also know I'm a Libertarian and believe in Isolationism except for when our Congress declares war and follows the constitution.

So again, why waste anyone's bandwith with such a distracting comment?

And:

Why do you feel your right to life trumps my right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness since my liberty and pursuit of happiness are not infringing your life?

These are your people. The future of the dying republican party. How's it look to you?
A bunch of blow dried, elitist, pseudo intellectual jerks. Nothing would serve them better than a staff sgt's foot up their ass, and you know it.

Right, it's the guns. No one was ever murdered without guns.

And the guns do the murdering. Not another person.

It is absolutely about me and about everyone at an individual level, not only because of common sense, but our country was built around individual freedoms. I use myself in the example, but I could put anyone's name there and have it be about any issue, not just gun control. That's the awesome thing about freedom, it is a universal concept :)

You did hit the nail on the head though, the question is unanswerable from your position, but I would still like to hear opposing views try and answer it.

I assume you mean criminal when you say gun nut.

If that were even remotely reasonable, there would be no other crimes committed, because everyone that wanted to commit a crime, but didn't have a gun, would lay in front of the TV. Can you provide any proof that crimes are not committed because people lay in front of the TV when they don't have a gun?

Then what is the point? You seem pretty adamant that guns are to blame......

No it isn't, that's absolutely the point

Right because everyone that wanted to commit a crime, but didn't have a gun, would lay in front of the TV. Can you provide any proof that crimes are not committed because people lay in front of the TV when they don't have a gun?

You sure about that? He wouldn't have driven a car into a crowd of children? He wouldn't have used gasoline to kill them? He wouldn't have used a knife?

Again, you are saying that the gun is to blame. At best, that's disingenuous. At worst, you are projecting your own fears and neuroses.

What is your logic? She had a shotgun and at least 4 handguns. Those kill not as bad as handguns?

It's not crack pot. It's a core argument that shows your position as indefensible. Personal freedoms trump everything in a Republic and we live in a Republic. It's about everyone's personal freedoms. It's about our collective freedoms at the individual level.

Do you feel your rights are more important than mine? Do you feel that a random citizen in another state's rights are more important then yours or more important than mine?

So, because you are terrified of some hypothetical "gun nut" killing you, you have decided that I shouldn't own firearms with certain cosmetic features?

Now, please tell me how limiting what I can own will have any affect on you and your safety.

As stated earlier, no one, including myself, said it was all about me. I used myself as an example, as I think that is more fair then picking someone randomly.

The fear of guns does not infringe on your rights, that's imaginary and this is reality. Your imaginary fears do not trump others real rights.

You can make the argument that there are guns in the hands of people that are not lawful (unqualified is a poor term, lawful is not ambiguous like unqualified and it is definable per the law), but your desire for legislation should address that and only that. It should not address lawful gun owners and remove freedoms from lawful (legally qualified) gun owners. If you can see this very important distinction, there may be some hope, otherwise you are telling me indirectly that your rights are more important than mine, for no other reason then because they are yours.

you guys always want to nit pik little specific things that support your little arguments. The issue is bigger than individual incidents. Jesus. And YES, always worried about "military grade weapons" in the public arena. Any sane person would be. We cant' stop people from being people. It's been that way since the first cave man bludgeoned the second cave man. But, we can stop spewing semi automatic weapons onto the public square. What is the problem with that?

I've already stated "what's the problem with that" . This is not an appeal to peoples emotions and to try and pull at their heart strings by saying "what's the problem with that" ?

It's that your imaginary fears do not trump my real rights. And my imaginary fears do not trump your real rights. Let me flip your argument on its head and show you that it cannot even hold up to its own merit.

What if my imaginary fear is you communicating your imaginary fears and I want a judge to legally restrict you from talking to anyone else. Is this just? Do my imaginary fears trump your imaginary fears or do my imaginary fears trump your right to free speech?

Actually, facts are important. You are claiming that "semi-automatic weapons", or "military grade weapons" are this horrible problem. But the numbers show otherwise.

With all due respect, do you have a visual disability. I ask because I replied directly to your post and either your disability made it difficult for you to see that or you just lied.

My reply was posted verbatim as follows:
*************

There was no comment on the background check because I don't have an issue with it, I believe we agree on that, I also think that falls under common sense.

I'm glad you've finally admitted that as a law abiding gun owner, that I am not threatening your life, this is an important small step. So why would you then advocate the removal of my freedoms if I've done nothing wrong?

I read the article, and it shows its colors of ignorance very easily. The person that wrote it is so unintelligent, they can't google the fact that Adam Lanza did not use the Ar15, it was conveniently found in his vehicle. The fact that the weapon can be fired quickly is equally unintelligent. It can be fired just as quickly as a semi automatic pistol and in reality the pistol can do more damage in almost all situations that are criminal in nature. The only time the Ar15 would be better suited then a pistol would be if there was a fair amount of distance between the shooter and the target.

Are you starting to see the idiocy of the non assault weapon - assault weapon ban now?
*************

Just because my ideas are not universally embraced doesn't mean I'm going to scrap them and jump on a band wagon, that may be how people that share your beliefs do so, but that isn't how I conduct myself.

On to the military grade comment, they are not military grade if police departments use them, I invalidated this comment earlier with the same response. They are not offensive weapons, they are defensive weapons. If they were military grade they would be offensive weapons, but our military does not use Ar15 model weapons, they instead use offensive military weapons. With the police using them as defensive weapons and the military not using them as offensive weapons, the line has been drawn as to why a citizen should also be able to use it as a defensive weapon and why it is not an assault weapon, as well as to why you think your rights are more important then mine (whether consciously or not) when you make those statements.

Yet I just showed that they aren't in the public domain.

And thanks for your Somalian talking point - it's as good as me telling you to go move to Cuba if you want your gun free paradise.

But I'm an adult, so I don't do that.

And I love that you speak for "Millions". Really?

And there actually is Law in Somalia -

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Somalis-Foundation-Economic-Development/dp/156902250X

Fascinating book, written by someone who actually lived in Somalia.

It's not military grade, I just disproved that. It may look like what Hollywood displays as military grade, but that's fictitious.

I'm not, but will register, should I use that name as my referrer?

You said there was no law in Somalia. Not a factual statement. And now you backpedal.

But you don't mention that "military grade" firearms are practically outlawed already for average citizens and have been since 1986. Why don't you want to spend more time on that subject?

Military grade = offensive weapons used by the military and lawfully authorized for use only by the military. Offensive type weaponry.
Civilian grade = everything else that is lawful to own. Defensive type weaponry.

Guess which category the Ar15 falls into? Do the police or the military use the Ar15/Ar15 clones?

We can talk numbers if you want. 80 million gun owners in the USA. 300 million guns.

I have a problem with you unilaterally deciding what I can and can't own. Especially considering that you do not know what you are talking about. You can point at a cow and call it a horse all day long. Doesn't make it a horse. A "bushmaster" is not a "military grade" firearm. No matter how much you say it is.

Maybe we would take you a little more seriously if you used words properly. "Bushmaster" is a company, not a rifle. But you don't know that, because you don't know anything about firearms. You just know that they terrify you.

I'm not "the NRA", just a Citizen who refuses to let anyone trample his rights.

And just to drive the point home - for all practical purposes, "military grade" firearms are illegal for common civilian ownership.

I've already cut these types of comments off before they could be posted

Military grade = offensive weapons used by the military and lawfully authorized for use only by the military. Offensive type weaponry.
Civilian grade = everything else that is lawful to own. Defensive type weaponry.

Guess which category the Ar15 falls into? Do the police or the military use the Ar15/Ar15 clones?

Since we live in a Republic and one of the guaranteed rights no matter the opinion of the majority or minority, is the right to own arms, nothing else matters. Everything else is a distraction technique and no one is trying to include offensive military weapons, only defensive weapons such as the Ar15 style rifles and other weapons. You trying to link the Ar15 and the term military grade is just a liberal crutch, you could link anything to the term "military grade", all just a distracting red herring argument. Your position is that of always losing, because the constitution and freedom support mine. The Ar15 weapon is not a military weapon and it is defensive in nature, not offensive in nature such as military grade weapons that are illegal in this country.

Fortunately our explicitly protected rights are not in jeopardy whether the majority of the country agrees with us or not ... that's the beauty of a Republic :) .

@Brad-

That is absolutely the beauty of a Republic! It's just extra nice when the majority agrees with us.

"Gone nowhere on the national stage" Have you been hiding under a rock?

Polls show that the majority of the country is in favor of stricter gun control. It's the vocal minority like the couple of hundred protestors that showed up in Annapolis that aren't.

Then you should be fighting against assaults on our republic and including things that do not necessarily infringe upon a freedom that you thoroughly enjoy. The reason being is that if one constitutionally protected freedom is eroded or removed, then all of them are vulnerable, including the ones that you hold close to your heart. You should be aged enough to realize the importance of this.

Of course you subscribe to the theory of "Positive Law". Sadly for you, this republic is based on "Natural Law'.

Rights do not come from man, they are not granted by government. The Bill of Rights is an Enumeration of Natural Rights of the citizens that predate and supersede the government.

Man cannot take anything away, because man granted nothing.

You've clearly never read Jefferson, or Locke. And you clearly couldn't tell the Federalist Papers from the Anti-Federalist Papers. Or the Federalist Papers from USA Today, for that matter.

But when you don't even know (or acknowledge - maybe you are simply being purposefully obtuse) that our system of government is based on the theory of Natural Law, that is just an indication of how ignorant you are.

Again, I recommend educating yourself before engaging in conversations such as this. you will probably save yourself from embarrassment.

Sorry again, not a member of any political party. And no, I haven't justified "gun violence" at all. In fact, I've stated that all violence is wrong.

I was simply pointing out your factually incorrect statements regard this country's framework documents. The constitution was written by men, based on their understanding of Natural Law. You don't have to like it, but their writings show that it is a verifiable fact. Also, if you would like to change the constitution, there is an established procedure of amendment. Knock yourself out. However, you don;t just get to "say so" and make it happen.

I also like your assumption or projection about me not having concern for others lives. Never said that, never insinuated that. Actually, I feel that others lives are as important as my own. That is why I choose not to infringe on their Rights.

Not a single thing that you have proposed would put a stop to "slaughtering kids". Sorry, it just won't. People were murdered before firearms.

Or you can look up the concept of "Democide" - the fact that in the 20th century, Governments killed more of their own citizens than were killed in all wars and crime.

And before each of those acts of Democide, the populace was disarmed. Verifiable fact.

I get that people owning firearms terrifies you. And I pity you in that respect. It must be horrible to live like that. Always afraid. Always projecting inadequacies....

No one has justified gun violence, I have spent the past few days invalidating all of the typical liberal crutch arguments that you are repeating and if I was taking whatever class you are teaching I would be doing the same there. No one said all weapons should be handed out to anyone that wants one either, this is a common distracting technique for liberals to use where they can only speak in extremes and absolutes.

To show what a fallacy your last statement was, you've implied school with kids (majority/plurality), so what kids at the school were shot with an Ar15 (you've defined that earlier as an assault weapon). How many were killed with an Ar15?

As Bill said, the constitution was based on Natural Law and the Bible (of which Natural Law echo's the Bible) and the rights that come from them are not man made. You cannot change Natural Law and you could try to amend the Constitution, but the Constitution should always correlate to Natural Law and removing someone's right to self defense breaks that correlation.

It stems from a lust for power and lust for control over others, as well as a lust to receive edification from forcing others to see and validate your point of view through the legal system, against their will. This is a selfish and arrogant action, only eclipsed by the lack of foresight to see how detrimental this type of behavior can be in the long run. Liberals/Democrats love people like you, you're the reason they've stayed in power as long as they have.

And so now that I've defined you inside and out, you should read and reread what I've written and do a moral inventory to ask yourself why you are the way that you are. What happened in your childhood or early adult life that caused you to have aforementioned lusts for power and why? This would be the first step in working towards resolution for your lust for power and control, as that's a self defeating and terrible personality characteristic to live with.

This is the typical hypocrisy of liberals, he said the conversation ends when someone insults him, but he does not hold himself to his own standards. This is echoed all the way up to the current administration and this topic where you would not see our president giving up his right to have armed guards for himself and his kids, or asking them to carry six shooters and shotguns as Tdolce has stated should be what is allowed.

You are funny, man. Thanks for the great laugh! I'll ask you the same question I asked your new protege, BRAD: Do you even have a JOB? You do know what a JOB is, right? Since all you seem to do is waste your time on this silly forum, that about 8 people read.

That's a sad retort, I'll take it as an admission to defeat.

You can put your head in the sand and pretend that everyone is laughing with you, ignoring the reality that everyone is actually laughing at you. I know liberals like to repeat things over and over again hoping that will make them eventually true, but that won't be allowed here.

Completely irrelevant aside from the fact that I am proud to be a maker and not a taker.

Again, this has nothing to do with you losing this argument, not to me but because you are in a self defeating position, and your viewpoint is that of a losing one before the discussion ever started. If you don't believe me, have your students anonymously rate your discussion points and mine (putting aside personal bias) and see what the results are.

I answered your question, although it was irrelevant and I wanted to point that out. You can't use the invention on the inventor, although that was a good try but it was anticipated and squashed ahead of time. Again, it has nothing to do with this topic, it's a sad defeated man's attempt to try and personally attack someone when they've lost the argument based on the issue(s).

Your argument is that you feel your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is more valuable then my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Mine is that they are equal and mutually exclusive. Assault weapons are not in the public square, so that argument is illegitimate and inappropriate at best.

You can tell that subconsciously you realize you've lost, because all of your responses have a condescending or snide remark in them. Psychologically, this is done when someone is trying to elevate a fragile and declining self worth (in the current arena), as a hollow attempt to restore pride and self esteem. I could go through this discussion and copy/paste all of the condescending snide innuendos but patch only allows so many characters per post and sadly enough I believe it would be 2 or 3 posts.

The only avenue that you believe you have left is an ad hominem argument, but in reality you do not even have that crutch. :D

ps - My challenge for your students is still open

And there is another example of a snide and condescending remark. That's a sign of weakness, you can do better. I've analyzed myself for a while now and it has helped me to become much better at articulating why I hate when others try and control me and why I love freedom, among many other things.

It's also part of the reason why I can analyze you. But our opposing views are just an example of one person trying to elevate their own rights over the other (you) and one person saying that both sets of God given rights are of equal value and mutually exclusive (me).

But this is not the point of this article, although it is what drives freedom removing bills like these and the support behind them. It's important for you to understand why you are trying to control others and why you value your own rights more than you value others rights. If you can grasp this, you may be able to see the selfishness of this mindset and change. If you (and people that share your lust for control) could do that, it would be easier to collectively come up with proper solutions to challenges for a society, ones that do not elevate one groups rights over another. You'd be amazed at how amicable people can be when they don't feel you are trying to control them, force your beliefs on them or belittle them by attempting to elevate your rights above theirs.

Poll your students for an anonymous and unbiased opinion ;)

ok, I know you guys are wired for fear, so full disclosure.....I don't really have a nuclear bomb in my house....