by DL-Online
Obama pushes gun control plan in Minnesota visit
February 4, 2013 at 9:21 am in DL-Online
MINNEAPOLIS — President Barack Obama emphasized background checks and a ban on military assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in a speech to Minnesota law enforcement officials and local leaders Monday to promote his plan to curb gun violence. Continue Reading
the right to bear arms saves many more lives than it will ever take. Better to keep ourselves armed rather than put arms in the hands of our government, there are not many folks left in government that can be trusted. It’s that simple
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
33
red mist … you didn’t happen to see the move Django Unchained recently … did you Petey?
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
Petey said “BTW, the government is already armed beyond your wildest dreams”. So is this an admission that the ‘assault weapons’ that Obama and his cronies want so badly to ban are in fact NOT military weapons but are IN FACT sporting arms that have some features similiar to military arms. A pistol grip on a rifle or a shotgun does not make it suddenly more lethal than a sporting rifle or a shotgun with a conventional stock. And what is it with the silliness banning bayonet lugs? How many crimes have you heard of where someone used a bayonet attached to a rifle?
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Let’s put everything into perspective. There were about 50,000 gun deaths in the United States in 2000. Probably a good majority of those are gang bangers having turf wars. Now let’s fast forward to 2012/2013. We have a terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook and a few more around the country. The President comes out and shows us all how deeply concerned he is over the loss of human life. Yet when it comes to Abortion and the murders that are committed by Abortion to the tune of 114,000 for the months of January and part of February of this year, the President and his supporters are silent. How ironic. I liken it to expecting a big rain storm and the President rushes over to try to repair a little leak over here, while we have one big gigantic hole over there. Doesn’t it make sense to repair the cause of the larger loss of life first? I mean if he’s really that concerned? BTW…Of those 114,000 murdered children, only 1,400 were attributed to rape etc. The rest were done for convenience?
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
31
I would like a source on your statement as well ron. And I want it to include how many people who caused these injuries were defending themselves.
Like or Dislike:
16 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
25
Fact, people who drive cars kill more people in automobile accidents than people who do not drive cars. Quick, let’s propose legislation to correct this obvious problem and danger.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
26
Uh, Ron, you don’t know that
Like or Dislike:
18 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
25
Are you aware that legislation has been overturned because it negatively affected citizens right to bear arms?
Like or Dislike:
18 
11
Citation please to this legislation that has been overturned.
Like or Dislike:
9 
11
Found a whole two of them, both dealt with concealed laws. When making an argument it is customary to cite your sources. As I have and Ron has.
Like or Dislike:
3 
11
Is that customary for you Grand Forks people? Here in DL, we just normally cite things that aren’t so well known or that we find useful.
Sorry Stan, I didn’t know you had a specific number of laws overturned required. Is that from your Grand Forks’ customs?
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
Just so you know Dave … I live near Devils Corner, Michigan. We used to live just outside of Hell but last year we moved to get away from the crime.
And one more thing … the Grand Forks Herald group included people from all parts of the US. We welcomed them. We formed friendships with them. We didn’t treat them like crap.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Are you saying I treated someone like crap? If so, please explain.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
Well since you said please … I find some of your comments to be unpleasant bordering on rude. I would rather not be treated this way so I will leave you in peace and move on.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I was not aware I made comments to you that could be deemed unpleasantly bordering on rude in this thread. Maybe you are posting under two names. I can understand how you would not like to be treated rudely. No one does. It was just the other day that the Grand Forks Herald group in exile attacked, with extreme rudeness, a very nice lady that I personally know just because she believes in Jesus Christ. She doesn’t even comment on this board. On this board, most of us have learned to wear our big boy pants because it can sometimes get a little rough. Our moderators earn their pay.
So have fun in your moving on, live in peace and be well.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
devilschild said: On February 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM
Just so you know Dave
I am not surprised you felt the need to say that. I have a hard time getting my explanation past Kari. FYI – I said Grand Forks as a short cut for Grand Forks Herald group in exile. I did not know that I now have to follow your Grand Forks Herald group in exile customs and rules that you followed there. I probably won’t.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
For one thing I live in Arizona. The state that just had a huge gun show. But loaded guns were not admitted in the show for safety reasons.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
For one thing I live in Arizona.
Don’t care.
The state that just had a huge gun show. But loaded guns were not admitted in the show for safety reasons.
So what.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
It seems that they even know how dangerous a loaded gun is in the hands of a responsible gun owner. How come the gun rights people did not complain about this? But will complain that they can not take a loaded gun into church?
Like or Dislike:
4 
10
Do you complain when the DNR tells you how many shells you can have in a gun and what type of gun can be used? Where is the uproar over the DNR impeding your “god given right” to have and use the type of gun you want to kill one of his creatures?
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
Hunting isn’t a constitutionally guaranteed right, the right to keep and bear arms arms to protect yourself from tyrants and other criminals is.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
Nice try at the spin. They still are regulating your use of your firearm though are they not? So regulations of firearm usage is not always unconstitutional? Thank you so much for making our point.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
Not intending to offend, does your reply button not work or is there something wrong with the system?
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Oh I see, it is a feature of the system. Nevermind then.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
The system whigs out once in awhile.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
Hunting doesn’t necessarily require the use of a firearm. The hunting requirements only function as a way to manage wildlife not to regulate firearms. Sorry, nice try.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
Sorry you failed again in your spin. Is the DNR regulating the use of your firearm? Yes they are regulating and interfering with your constitutional right that you claim. But not a peep out of you telling the DNR that they do not have the right to regulate your guns. WHY?
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
If you want to go hunting the DNR specifies the requirements for hunting. As hunting is not a constitutionally protected right it is in the DNR’s juristiction to make rules to participate in this activity. Participating in hunting is voluntary so a hunter can choose to participate in the activity. I can be hunting coyotes while in possession of a rifle with a 20 round clip while also in possession of a waterfowl license and I am in no way prohibited from carrying that rifle.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
I’ll have to assume your referring to the Crossroads of the West gun show since you did not specify. (I’m sure your aware it is not the only gun show statewide). The policy of Crossroads is that firearms being brought into the show to sell or get appraised must be checked at the door and unloaded, that is true of most gun shows around the country. If you have a CCW, they do request you not carry with a loaded weapon, however, having a loaded concealed weapon is NOT forbidden at this show. Fulfilling their request is as simple as not having a round in the chamber, making the weapon still usable if the need arises.
Hypocritical? Of course not. Remember, criminals and lunatics are not barred from attending these shows. The CCW request is simply that, a request.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Try Google Stan. I don’t usually cite info that was on national news and has widespread knowledge with concerned citizens.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
25
How do you know it is paranoia Ron?
Like or Dislike:
18 
11
Since you did not reply I assume you are now aware that you were incorrect in saying it is because of paranoia.
Like or Dislike:
9 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
24
Are you aware of the second amendment Ron?
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
10
“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.”
Is this the second amendment you are speaking of? The second amendment gaurantees the right to a WELL REGULATED militia. No one is taking away your rights. The government is REGULATING the sales of guns. You still have the right to buy a gun. Instead of focusing on the government “taking away your guns” maybe you should focus your energy on how we can reduce crime rates.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
18
Is there another second amendment that applies to the subject Ron?
Actually Ron, it is the “right of the people” to keep and bear arms, not the right to a well regulated militia (your capitalizations notwithstanding).
And Ron, where do you find this right of which you hang you hat on that gives the government the right to regulate gun sales?
Ron, you have no idea, although you think you do, what I am focusing on. Maybe you should do some focusing on minding your own business.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
13
Since you didn’t reply, I assume you now agree that the right is to keep and bear arms and you were incorrect in saying it is a right to a well regulated militia. This is a well known, litigated, fact and I am surprised you didn’t know it.
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
I seriously doubt you’ve got the proper insight to reinterpret the words of our Founding Fathers, Dave.
The concept of a ‘well regulated militia’ has nothing whatsoever to do with civilians walking around with AR-15s with 30-round clips strapped across their backs and spare Glocks with 15-round clips tucked in their britches. Personally, I have no problem with the right of citizens to possess firearms as they deem fit for sporting purposes or home protection. But the idea of this nation becoming an armed conclave, regressing back to the days of the wild, wild, west (where cowboys had to check their guns at the Dodge City saloons, no less!), is repulsive to the idea of a civilized society.
Like or Dislike:
6 
11
I was surprised that you did not appear earlier Kevin. I figured you must have been out of town.
Rebel said: “I seriously doubt you’ve got the proper insight to reinterpret the words of our Founding Fathers, Dave.”
You must not have read what I wrote. I did not reinterpret the words of our Founding Fathers. I repeated their words. Pray tell, what reinterpretation do you see.
Rebel said: “The concept of a ‘well regulated militia’ has nothing whatsoever to do with civilians walking around with AR-15s with 30-round clips strapped across their backs and spare Glocks with 15-round clips tucked in their britches.”
Interesting that you said that. I did not say, or imply, that, or anything close. What do you mean by saying it?
Rebel said: “But the idea of this nation becoming an armed conclave, regressing back to the days of the wild, wild, west (where cowboys had to check their guns at the Dodge City saloons, no less!), is repulsive to the idea of a civilized society.”
Is that what you see coming rebel? I wonder what makes you think that that could happen again. I don’t find it repulsive to the idea of a civilized society as you do though. To me, it just was the precurser of the civilized society to come. Guns helped tame the wild and roudy to allow the society to be more docile (bad guys dead) and civilized.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
“Guns helped tame the wild and roudy to allow the society to be more docile (bad guys dead) and civilized.”
Thankfully, we now have highly trained police and military to handle that task. It might be time to scale back the ‘wild west’ mentality.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
Petey said @4:20pm: “Thankfully, we now have highly trained police and military to handle that task. It might be time to scale back the ‘wild west’ mentality.”
Wow Petey, you are out there in rebel land. You should discuss this with rebel. I don’t see a “wild west” mentality like rebel and you. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and the right not to do so. You can be thankful that we have highly trained police and remain unarmed – they are trained to call the coroner to pick up your body after some bad guy untimely ends your life. The police are not available to prevent violent crimes most of the time. Peace, dude.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
This article cites 31513 deaths by firearms in, 2010. The majority of these deaths is by suicide not gang violence as stated by john. 11000 are attributed to homicide. 600 attributed to accidental. 200,000 non fatal gun injuries were also reported.
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
“A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).”
“Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.”
Let’s see your statistics now.
Like or Dislike:
9 
17
What is your point Ron? You apparently like statistics. It appears you are trying to say that because bad things sometimes happen with guns, we shouldn’t have guns. You are aware, I hope, that statistics do not help much in the real world for the subject of the statistic. For example, though highly improbable statistically, two one hundred year floods should not happen two years in a row. Not much consolation for the families of those hurt or drowned in the second flood.
Another example, your statistics lose validity when you go into specific areas of the country, instead of the country as a whole. Statistics would probably show that you are much more likely to die a violent death in Watts, or Compton, California than Grand Forks, North Dakota. That doesn’t mean you wouldn’t get your life ended violently in Grand Forks.
Like or Dislike:
13 
9
Ron’s other statistic above states: ““Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession.”
Therefore, even if you use the gun to stop the assault of the criminal, Ron says you shouldn’t have because statistics show you could have gotten hurt yourself intead of stopping the criminal. Therefore, Ron thinks we should be victims intead of defending ourselves. Cold, isn’t it.
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
http://secondamendmentoutfitters.com/ammo-price-hikes-coming/
I have searched and cannot find an actual proposed tax percentage on ammunition. Current increases in price have been contributed to the price of metals increasing and increase sales by gun nuts speculating an increase tax by the federal government. As you can clearly see the current increase in amuunition is not caused by gun owners and not the federal government.
Like or Dislike:
7 
15
Uh, Ron, you might try a second cup of copy and edit your post to make sense. Or, possibly stay away from your computer until you become coherent.
Like or Dislike:
14 
8
That would be coffee, not copy. Need to go get my third.
Like or Dislike:
8 
9
Maybe you should take your own advice.
Like or Dislike:
8 
13
Why are you here? Surely it isn’t to stay on topic. Is this another custom you brought from Grand Forks?
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
Dtave, I never said the government should take away your guns. And imagine this I support responsible gun ownership and I myself am a gun owner. To own a gun for self defense is crazy, to ccw incase you see a bad guy is ludacris! Nra supporters can only repeat the same garbage over and over. It is our right to own a gun. And I need a gun for when the bad guy comes to harm me. I have provided statistics that destroy the first comment on the board. Go read it again and you will see I have provided data from an independent source that disproves that myth.
Like or Dislike:
6 
14
“Dtave, I never said the government should take away your guns.”
Ron, I never said you did.
“To own a gun for self defense is crazy, to ccw incase you see a bad guy is ludacris!”
Can you support that opinion with facts Ron? What does ccw have to do with a hip hop artist?
Ron, when, if ever, will you respond to what I comment instead of going off on your tangents that have nothing to do with my comments?
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
Are you saying that, given the opportunity, you would not use your firearms to protect yourself or your family? I understand that you keep them for reasons other than protection, but if one was available to you in a time of danger to yourself or your family, you would not use it for protection?
Like or Dislike:
14 
2
We need to take responsibility and be responsible gun owners. We need to register all guns. We need background checks on all gun sales. I am in favor of a liscense to possess any firearm anywhere (you can grandfather in ccw permit holders and firearm safety endorsements). These measures ensure the safety of our citizens. It would make it easier for law enforcement to identify whether that person can or cannot posses a weapon. Everyone will lose their rights to posses a firearm If gun owners do not show that they are responsible and actually more common than the criminals who abuse gun possession.
Like or Dislike:
6 
14
How is that you know law abiding gun owners are not being responsible? How does gun register make a gun owner responsible. You must be aware that criminals do not register their guns, and your opinion will not make them become responsible or register their guns.
Ron said: “Everyone will lose their rights to posses a firearm If gun owners do not show that they are responsible and actually more common than the criminals who abuse gun possession.”
That sentence, Ron, does not make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
Since you did no reply Ron, it is apparent you think gun owners are irresponsible. You just don’t have any proof. You just believe it.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
Instead of dismissing my statistics and citations (because they do not support your point of view), you should cite your own stats that support your argument.
Annually There are around 100 to 130 murders in the state of minnesota. Look it up those numbers are accurate.
Like or Dislike:
5 
11
Ron said: “Instead of dismissing my statistics and citations (because they do not support your point of view), you should cite your own stats that support your argument.”
I don’t think you know my point of view. If you think you do, tell me what it is. I am not dismissing your statistics and citations, I am just pointing out how they are either weak, non-conclusive and irrelevant. You have an opinion that they prove your point; however, I do not and comment. You do not respond to my comments so you must be dismissing what I say – based on your logic.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
Since you didn’t reply, it appears you now agree that your use of stats are not being dismissed; it is just that they have been proven to be irrelevent.
“Annually There are around 100 to 130 murders in the state of minnesota. Look it up those numbers are accurate.”
Why did you make that statement? It is just hanging there by itself. You seemed to get some pleasure from saying how many people are dead. Ron, they are not statistics – they were real humans – show some respect.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
None of my possesions are worth my life. And considering I am over 4 times more likely to cause harm to my self or others, I will not use a gun for self defense.
My weapons are used for hunting and are locked up have trigger locks in them and I do not posses ammunition inside my home. So it would not be very practicle to defend my home with something that does not fire.
Like or Dislike:
5 
11
It would be very sad if you have a spouse and/or children and ever find a need to defend them. I think it would be best for someone like that to never marry. Also, It would not be prudent to have, or adopt, children that you wouldn’t defend. It’s a tough world, sorry.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
Who can belive that Obama or Dayton care about anybody’s death considering their support for killing approximately 50 million defenseless unborn babies.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mn/crime/
2.21 violent crimes per 1000 people in the state of mn. Well below the national average of 3.9 per thousand people. Let’s break this down even further 0.01 murders per 1000 people, 0.31 rapes per 1000 people, 0.63 robberies, and 1.25 assaults per 100 people. These statistics do not break down how many of these crimes are random/in cold blood or are crimes where the victim knew the criminal/criminal had a motive. Using regional statstics I believe my family and my self are safe. I will take my chances of being unarmed. It is the reponsible thing to do considering the odds of ever having to use a firearm for self defense. And let’s not forget you are 4 times more likely to harm yourself than actually stop a violent crim.
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
Ron said: “It is the reponsible thing to do considering the odds of ever having to use a firearm for self defense. And let’s not forget you are 4 times more likely to harm yourself than actually stop a violent crim.”
So Ron tells people victims of violent crimes who fend off the criminal using a gun are not doing a responsible thing. Even if a mother saves herself and her children. Ron thinks the responsible thing to do is just be a victim and allow the criminal to kill you and your children. Wow, just wow. That is the most cruel, cold harded and obnoxious thing he has said today.
But wait. That is not all. Ron justifies your, and your childrens, death by pointing to a statistic he read that says you are four times more likely to harm yourself and your children than stop the criminal. Now doesn’t that make you feel good. Oh, that’s right you can’t feel, and neither can your children – you are all dead. No worries, good ol’ people loving Ron is happy because he has he statistic and you are dead. Wow, just wow. Makes me sick just to think about it.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
Dave stated. “Are you saying I treated someone like crap? If so, please explain”. After stating “It would be very sad if you have a spouse and/or children and ever find a need to defend them. I think it would be best for someone like that to never marry. Also, It would not be prudent to have, or adopt, children that you wouldn’t defend. It’s a tough world, sorry.”
You have no right to say such offensive remarks without even knowing someone. I have a happy family that I would defend to the death. I choose not to have a firearm in my home for self defense. I have concluded that I love my family enough that I will not put them at the risk of an accidental shooting or escalation of a simple robbery into a homicide. It is not as tough of world as you and your nra buddies are trying to illustrate. The statistics support my argument dave. Where are yours? All you have done is repeated generalized statements and propeganda with nothing to support your arguments.
Like or Dislike:
5 
12
Ron said: “You have no right to say such offensive remarks without even knowing someone.”
Earlier Ron said at 2:15pm: “To own a gun for self defense is crazy, to ccw incase you see a bad guy is ludacris!”
Methinks Ron is not being consistent.
Like or Dislike:
10 
5
Yeah, I know Ron. You just wouldn’t defend your family with a gun if it was necessary. I understand it is your choice to make. It is just not the choice I would make. God forbid, but I would find it heartbreaking if that ever happens to you, your family or anyone. I value life of all innocent human beings – criminals, not so much.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mn/crime/
2.21 violent crimes per 1000 people in the state of mn. Well below the national average of 3.9 per thousand people. Let’s break this down even further 0.01 murders per 1000 people, 0.31 r..a…pe…s per 1000 people, 0.63 robberies, and 1.25 assaults per 100 people. These statistics do not break down how many of these crimes are random/in cold blood or are crimes where the victim knew the criminal/criminal had a motive. Using regional statstics I believe my family and my self are safe. I will take my chances of being unarmed. It is the reponsible thing to do considering the odds of ever having to use a firearm for self defense. And let’s not forget you are 4 times more likely to harm yourself than actually stop a violent crim.
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
The choice is yours to freely make. Too bad though if criminals show up. They don’t follow statistics or gun laws. Statistic classes do teach that basing your actions solely on statistics would be a foolhardy undertaking. Statistics are not rules and we all know there are always exceptions to rules.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Obama switches from supplying weapons to Mexican drug lords to the champion of disarming law abiding American citizens. Something is seriously wrong with this picture. I wonder if he now supports disarming Mexican drug lords?
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
Dave, I have the statistics to back up those statements. I did not call an individual on here crazy or ludacris. Statistically speaking it is crazy and ludacris to have a gun for self defense.
Like or Dislike:
4 
12
Ron, you are making my head hurt with your spelling. Please do not use ludacris when you mean ludicrous. Remember, Google can be your friend.
Ron, have you ever taken a statistics class? Do you understand that if you say something is not statistically possible, or impossible, it can, and does, still happen, or not happen? In other words, if statistics show that someone is more likely to hurt themself with a gun than kill, or run off, a bad guy, it is still possible for a gun owner to kill a bad guy instead of hurting themselves. That seems to escape you, even though I have previously pointed that out.
Ron, please show me the statistics that say ” it is crazy and ludacris to have a gun for self defense.” Statistics don’t, and can’t say such nonsense. I think it is silly for a person to say they have statistics that say something that they don’t – it is just the persons erroneous interpretation.
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
I am still waiting for a response Ron. I am really interested in how statistics speak. Do you really hear their voices? Personally I have never heard a statistic call a person crazy.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
If caught illegally taking game the dnr takes away your hunting privelage and your firearm. How can they take your firearm if you have the constitutional right to posses one?
Like or Dislike:
4 
13
Yes dave I have taken a college stats course. And I have provided statistics that show the chance of being involved in a violent crime are relativly slim. And to further my point I have provided a stat that shows that you are 4 times more likely to harm yourself than use your weapon successfully for self defense.
Yes bad things can happen. A violent crime can occur anywhere at anytime. I myself do not worry or feel the need to arm my self just incase something extremly rare is going to happen. You can goahead and live your life in fear. It is your choice to do so.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10
Ron, do you have a statistic that shows that a person who owns a gun is living in fear because they own a gun to support your statement “You can goahead and live your life in fear. It is your choice to do so”?
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
http://m.gawker.com/5982549/a-new-poll-measures-how-americans-feel-about-gun-control-women-in-combat
Dave, smartimus, et. Al.you guys are in the minority when it comes to your views on gun control. Most americans support stricter laws regarding background checks, limiting clip size, and banning assault weapons.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
What’s going on Ron? You giving up on statistics and switching to polls? I not surprised that you look to polls to see which way you should go. You really are losing it if you think someone like Smartimus or me would look to polls for what to believe in.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
The disclosure that the current administration has determined that it is “legal” to assassinate United States citizens who are abroad if they are believed to be a potential future threat is confirmation of the need to prevent any erosion of the 2nd Amendment. This new policy applies to individuals who are not involved in active combat. The decision to assassinate can be made by a single person and requires no confirmation or justification other than the belief that the person may pose a future threat to the United States. This policy allows the Federal Government to kill a United States citizen without due process. I am not paranoid and I am not an anarchist. I do believe however that it is reasonable to defend the 2nd Amendment in light the revelation that the current administration is willing to assassinate United States citizens outside of active combat without due process or a trial.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/07/168834462/the-2nd-amendment-27-words-endless-interpretations
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/p/2nd_amendment.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#section_1
Dave, if you truly understood the second amendment, you would understand that the original text was very confusing and it’s purpose has been argued and disputed since it’s creation. The original text was even ratified soon after it was written. The supreme court has even ruled in favor of a moderate view of the second amendment. One in which it does not deny the right to bear arms, but regulates the possesion of firearms for practicle uses.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Ron said at 10:10 am: “Dave, if you truly understood the second amendment, you would understand”
Dude, that is just rude.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
ron burgandy said: On February 8, 2013 at 10:10 AM
What is your point? And, no I didn’t, nor want to, spend the the time to read your links.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Dave, I am still waiting for you to provide an opinion backed up with data or an article.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
No one “attacked ,with rudness, an extremly nice lady”. We simply disagree with her opinion. If you cannot handle a civil debate you truly should reconsider posting or writing in social media. Not everyone believes in jesus christ, guns, and conservative “values”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
ron burgandy said: On February 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM
No one “attacked ,with rudness, an extremly nice lady”. We simply disagree with her opinion.
I and I simply disagree with your opinion. See what I did there?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
ron burgandy said: On February 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM
No one “attacked ,with rudness, an extremly nice lady”
Ron, when you use quote marks it means you are quoting someone’s words. In this case, you are saying those are my words. That was not my wording and it is totally unacceptable and rude of you to say it was. I expect an appology.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
ron burgandy said: On February 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM
“If you cannot handle a civil debate you truly should reconsider posting or writing in social media.”
Are you talking to me? I think I must have touched your sore spot.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
” On this board, most of us have learned to wear our big boy pants because it can sometimes get a little rough. Our moderators earn their pay. ”
Telling people to ‘mind their own business’ and asking ‘why are you here’ connotes a rude, smug, self importance…based in delusion. If that is what you refer to as ‘wearing your big boy pants’…someone needs to have said pants pulled down, for a good spanking. This place was virtually dead, until several of us migrated over. It still is, by comparison to the other (now extinct) FCC boards of its kind. I doubt your moderators (like they needed a STAFF) looked at this board more than once in a blue moon.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
There seems to be a misconception on the part of some that pro 2nd Amendment supporters have a beef with the US military. In think in reality far more members of the US military come from families who “cling to guns and their religion” as Obama so condescendingly put it than come from the DC and Hollywood elitist crowd. Law abiding gun owners tend to be strong supporters of the military and the police. We know though that the police can’t be everywhere and it can take them a long time to get where they are needed especially in sparsely populated rural areas. That’s why it is so important that we continue to defend our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Dave said “What is your point? And, no I didn’t, nor want to, spend the the time to read your links”
You simply want to disregard the facts an not have a debate. You want to argue with your emotions and opinions. Sorry dave but you do not need to own a weapon and you certainly do not need to live in fear of being harmed or murdered. I have presented arguments backed up with facts and data. You have the ability to try and prove me wrong witth your own data and have chose not to. If you do not want to have an intellegent debate, I do not have time to waste on you.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
“Sorry dave but you do not need to own a weapon and you certainly do not need to live in fear of being harmed or murdered”
I wonder how many European jews thought this very thing prior to Hitler?
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
New gun control laws have no chance at changing anything because criminals by their very nature ignore the law. Gun control laws will only criminalize law abiding citizens.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
If criminal and lunatics are not barred from gun shows, why do we still encourage person to person sales without a background check at these events? Talk about hypacritical!
Like or Dislike:
1 
4