You're a f#%king liar and you f#%king know it!

Those dirtbags have given that dirtbag Constitutional cover.

applies to any and all weapons, nor has he said that arms cannot be regulated. Read his opinion in Heller. It is very well-reasoned.

I really hope there are enough Dems in office to confirm a liberal judge to finally tip the balance on so many very important cases.

Or is your point that those that do are wasting their time?

restrictions and regulations. Not just for who initially gets a gun, but for tracking them. I would be fine with a gun registry. I would even be ok with the idea that I have to show the sheriff my guns once a year to keep my license to own them. I have to do that with my car already, getting an inspection in order to get my tags is part of being a responsible car owner.

I have zero worry that the scary government is going to kick in my door to take my deer hunting rifle. And if I was a police officer, I would want to know that a home was full of weapons before I knocked on the door to answer something like a domestic violence call.

The bureau of justice statistics estimates that 232,400 guns are stolen a year. And in most states, there is no requirement to report a stolen weapon.

Obviously not, but those who support even the mildest gun-control measures - milder than any other First World country - are lumped in with "gun grabbers" all the time.

As in take away people's guns kind of bans. So it is disingenuous to say that no one wants to take away our guns when there are plenty of posters here perfectly willing to do exactly that.

misguided and unrealistic. But the specter of "gun grabbers" should not be used as an excuse to reject any and all restrictions, like the ones I mentioned.

Registration and an AWB.

And there doesn't have to be anything like a national registry, but I would like to see some sort of licensing required to own a gun. If nothing else, it would be a certification that the person is competent to handle the weapon they're buying.

It works well for the NFA registry, and security through obscurity doesn't work for this issue anymore.

Repeal the '86 GCA/Hughes Amendment, and extend the NFA registry to all firearms. Ta-da.

Then the Lautenberg amendment gets a whole new set of fangs, because when the cops show up, they have a list of guns to collect. Same for involuntary committal to mental health institution, and other due process prohibitions.


I don't see any way to make this work without a registry, so as a gun owner, I want to be a part of the conversation to craft such a registry, to protect both sides of this issue.

It is a slopery slip doncha know.

I can't buy lawn darts. I can't walk around armed with a sword - even if I made it myself! If you're not able to buy a gun, it's no skin off my ass.

Fortunately civil rights don't depend on how people feel.

I can.

The NRA is the most evil and insidious political organization in the United States of America. They corrupt our politicians at all levels and branches of government, while inciting their followers to undertake armed revolution.

The NRA, the right-wing gun lobby, and their extremist followers, are a threat to public safety and should be treated as such. This has absolutely nothing to do with civil liberties or the Second Amendment, and everything to do with corporate greed. The SCOTUS Gang of Five fabricated Citizens United and Heller from the same right-wing neoconservative cloth.

Thank you. The NRA is trying to drag this country down into lunacy.

What a strange job. Whenever someone gets shot he has to dance for his supper and scare the pants off the timid little politicians.

Awesome!

.and they dutifully run out and buy more guns. Gun sales spike. Sick! Marketing 101.

Really

Accountable

And fuck all the craven politicians who enable this sociopathy.

Yeah, fuck that guy...

FUCK HIM! AND his GUN-FELLATING followers!! ESPECIALLY the ones in Congress and other offices!

[font size=10]NOT ONE MORE!![/font size]

. . . . . . . .

I don't usually bet, but I'd be willing to lay down a few bucks that ol' Wayne would be one of the first to pee his pants if involved in a real life shootout scenario.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

is of course the 2nd Amendment. Many remember this second half, but not the first half. I read this to mean that we have the right to "keep and bear arms" in order to participate in "a well regulated militia" to ensure the "security of a [our] free state".

Actually the word "state" probably refers to one of the several states in our union - from some historical discussions on the formulation of this Amendment.

Check Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution and the well-known, "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", which of course many know, but read just a little further, "and of the Militia of the several States ...".

So not only is the right to keep and bear arms meant to defend the state, but those participating must take orders from Obama!!

I love pointing this out to gun-nuts - who also often self-identify to be "strict constitutionalists". Checkmate.

It says the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. President Obama has publicly said the same thing.

a platform is just a list of ideas, values and actions desired by a political party - I was quoting from the supreme law of the land.

The party and the president support Heller.

Heller, like Citizens United, McCutcheon, and a few other Roberts Court rulings are bad law because they are anathema to the best interests of the American people. They need to be overturned, overruled, or amended into the obscurity they deserve.

the only thing it specifically protects is the right to own a handgun in ones home for self defense. Unless your goal is a total handgun ban (is it?), Heller is no obstacle to registration, AWBs, magazine size limits and other proposed laws. Your problem is cultural and political, not legal. It is nonsense to think that if Heller went away, there would be sweeping national gun control laws being passed.

Just like the 2nd Amendment.

(In fact, IIRC, the Citizens United decision explicitly stated the legislature was the correct avenue to address the problem at hand)

WOW!!! FABULOUS post!!! VERY glad you're here! Impressive! And your second-to-last line - PRICELESS!!!!! OMG!!! I'd bet the gun-nuts have no clue about that part!!! "Strict constitutionalists" my ass. Just use the first syllable in "constitutionalists" and you've about pegged it. Just another CON-job...

But I think I understand how some of these folks think. Use a highfalutin' word to throw 'em off. Makes you look smart and makes 'em think you're smart (or, better, smarter than they are). Also, I'm sure they've noticed that when bill o'reilly says "constitutionalist," or even "traditionalist" or the really fun one - "originalist," it sometimes stops his on-air opponent for a moment. It's a mind-fuck. But not one person across the table from him ever makes HIM stop and define what he means by those phrases? And if one IS indeed, an "originalist" or "traditionalist," shouldn't all Second Amendment's references to "arms" refer to the arms known, recognized, and used at the time the document was originated? Wouldn't that be during an era of widespread use of muskets, bayonets, and blunderbuss-style weaponry? So therefore should we not read the strict original sense of the Second Amendment to apply to the owning and using of muskets, bayonets, and blunderbusses (blunderbi?)? Seems to me the Second Amendment covers all things musket/bayonet/blunderbuss - and nothing else.

SCOTUS has recognized, and common-sense dictates, that in order for the Constitution to "live", that it must change as our society does - which means accepting technological / scientific advances, etc. So regarding what type of "arms" is a no-win argument for either side I think. I prefer to focus on the "well regulated militia" part of the Amendment.

thanks for the kind words btw : )

The 2nd scales with technology just like the first. The courts have held that the 2nd doesn't apply to area-effect weapons like explosives, and artillery however, so weapons greater than .50 in caliber, and other items classified as 'destructive devices' rather than firearms, are still prohibited even in the face of the 2nd Amendment.

I have suggested my governor do so, several times, for the purposes of combating flooding, and wildfires, to no avail.

'Security of a free state' need not mean fending off a herd of armed Mounties, riding moose across the border, to resume the Pig and Potato War. Natural disasters are 'security' issues as well.

I'd like to test how many show up.

"just ask any gun idiot to recite another Constitutional Amendment and get ready for the standard reply, 'duh...'"

You are being too kind. Ask them to quote the Second Amendment and most won't remember the part about the well-regulated militia.

ol' Wayne, "Really, are you serious?" How can the media even take this as a serious argument? Wait, I know the answer to this question! It's because of who and how few the owners of the MSM are. This shite will go on too because even if 100% of Americans wanted background checks, the NRA and Congress would still not pass any restrictions on guns what so ever! As long as we are willing to put up with corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce owning their (formerly "our" Representatives, Judges, and most regulatory agencies and of course the media.
I wish I believed in Hell just so I can really mean it when I say that "I hope when he dies, Wayne LaPierre goes straight to F'in HELL!!!"

I almost admire him, being able to remember to breathe all the time. Can't be easy with only a brainstem working.

Wayne used a nervous disorder to avoid the draft, doesn't want background checks because he couldn't pass one. Just like that brave patriot Ted Nugent.

And there should be laws against having more than one, outside hunting rifles. Some of these people are just obsessed. They are the ones with mental illness. Like they are going to be attacked any moment and only a gun will save them.

Honestly? How many hands do you have?

I'm not saying he's noble, not at all. Personally as a gun owner I can't stand him, but if you judge him on how many customers he sends to Winchester and Smith & Wesson a year, he's doing an unprecedented job as a lobbyist.

In an industry where a customer really "needs" only one or two of a company's items, LaPierre has convinced owners that they need a freakin' arsenal. He's actively exploited social fear and mistrust of the government to drive shooters to stockpile thousands of rounds of ammo that they can't possibly use in three lifetimes.

Unlike the oil industry lobby, the NRA pretends they represent the people who own guns instead of the companies that sell them. It'd be like if the AAA worked behind the scenes to defeat production of hybrid cars and kept gasoline prices at a premium for the sake of Exxon Mobil profit.

In LaPierre's case, while we're focusing on his right hand as it pounds the podium in anger, we're distracted from his left hand that's getting well greased by the gun makers, and no one can argue that they aren't getting their money's worth. For that reason. LaPierre could not care less that you call him a liar.

and I love it. Well said! Awesome rant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its really quite amazing.

I almost said about the same thing this past weekend to a gun nut who was "explaining to me" why there should be no regulation on gun ownership to "law abiding citizens"......because they will need those guns to protect themselves from the government. I chose instead to laugh my ass off at how ridiculous that is, no matter what guns they have.