I can already hear the Kool-Aid guzzling NRA masses reloading while squealing “Nooooo…more liberal lies!!!”

How much does it take before the people who supposedly champion responsible gun ownership actually get around to support responsible gun ownership? They only have two eyes each…how many have to get blackened by sh*t like this before they snap out of it and go “Oh! Damn…guns are easy for crooks to buy because I keep it that way with my vote and my donations!! Gosh…I’d better force a change of agenda before more people get killed in needless armed crimes that could have been prevented by incredibly minor changes of law that don’t even impact honest citizens!”

I can already hear the Kool-Aid guzzling NRA masses reloading while squealing “Nooooo…more liberal lies!!!”

How much does it take before the people who supposedly champion responsible gun ownership actually get around to support responsible gun ownership? They only have two eyes each…how many have to get blackened by sh*t like this before they snap out of it and go “Oh! Damn…guns are easy for crooks to buy because I keep it that way with my vote and my donations!! Gosh…I’d better force a change of agenda before more people get killed in needless armed crimes that could have been prevented by incredibly minor changes of law that don’t even impact honest citizens!”

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Raw Story, Cliff Schecter, Sahil Kapur, C. Evans, Jamie Smith and others. Jamie Smith said: Undercover operation reveals how gun buyers can legally avoid background checks: By Sahil Kapur WASHINGTON – Ari… http://bit.ly/hSLKZi [...]

But . . . but . . . I’s needs them big ole magazines cause I’s kin hits me more beer cans wid em. Course wese drinks da beer first.

But . . . but . . . I’s needs them big ole magazines cause I’s kin hits me more beer cans wid em. Course wese drinks da beer first.

What business is it of the BILLIONAIRE mayor of New York to send infiltrators to Arizona? By the way, one of the stats ignored by gun grabbers: crimes are stopped by firearm owners at a rate of 4 to 1. Of course that sort of information is not convenient for those who want the only people with firearms to be the guys in black ski masks (meaning hardened criminals and government tyrants who beat, taze, and murder citizens which happens every day in the U.S. but the libs ignore it until it is some poor guy in downtown Seattle blown away by the cops for no reason at all).

What business is it of the BILLIONAIRE mayor of New York to send infiltrators to Arizona? By the way, one of the stats ignored by gun grabbers: crimes are stopped by firearm owners at a rate of 4 to 1. Of course that sort of information is not convenient for those who want the only people with firearms to be the guys in black ski masks (meaning hardened criminals and government tyrants who beat, taze, and murder citizens which happens every day in the U.S. but the libs ignore it until it is some poor guy in downtown Seattle blown away by the cops for no reason at all).

“crimes are stopped by firearm owners at a rate of 4 to 1″
And of course, you have a link that backs up your seemingly-wild statistic, correct?

Sorry but laws cannot make people be good. Laws cannot impose morality. If a good person is going to get a firearm for self-protection, they are not going to be violating any other laws anyway. If a bad person is going to get a weapon, they could simply be getting any weapon of opportunity which history proves: lunatics have went on murder sprees with knives, swords, baseball bats, axes, mallets, etc. Should all of those items also be illegal since they are obviously inherently evil objects which the user has no responsibility for their own actions when they have it? LOL, use some logic. Firearms are simply an object neither good nor bad until a person decides to use it in some manner just like a large rock or vehicle or anything else that can be used to harm others. Libs should direct their rants towards the Military-Industrial Complex which commits vast slaughters and murders wantonly all over the planet every day. How can you people sit there act like it is okay for the U.S. to continue to build weapons like JDAMs and drop them on mosques full of women and children? There are horrible videos of this online and the troops giggling and laughing as they drop bombs on civilians.

My mother always asks why I need a gun. I tell her, “If there is an armed man, breaking into my house…do you really think the police will get there in time?”

I’ll take my chances with the gun.

http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Took me a whole 30 secs to search, scan, and find this article…QUIT justifying your ignorance with lazyness. ITS NOT THE AMERICAN WAY.

Why are New York officers in Arizona?

“use some logic” Huh? Let me know when you see someone killed with a baseball bat from 100 yds.

It’s sooooo much easier to just impulsively pull that trigger without thinking about it.

So, Bloomberg’s troops went off the reservation, and fraudulently presented ID, far outside of their jurisdiction. Felony fraud there son. Kiss your pension goodbye. Hope the “Mayors” have a good second career for you.

Next, “the gun Jared Laughner used” was sold to an undercover? Wow. I thought it was still in-evidence, but I guess the AZ budget deficit demands drastic measures.

Lastly – the article reads:
(capital letters mine as I’m ignorant as to how bold text is accomplished)

WASHINGTON – Arizona gun show DEALERS sold firearms to undercover cops who openly admitted they wouldn’t be able to pass a background check, according to a revealing operation conducted by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office.
While the quoted discussion plainly states:

Investigator: “So, you’re not one of those, you know, dealer guys, right?”

Seller: “No. No tax, no form, you don’t have to do transfers or nothing.”

OBVIOUSLY NOT A DEALER – but a citizen selling a firearm.

A spectacular piece of yellow journalism, I’d apply to the NY Times.

So… laws that criminalize murder are ineffective so we should just make murder legal?

“Logic” dictates that you are advocating anarchy.

Jeff Rense is a well-known wack job. Here are the first paragraphs of what wikipedia has to say about him:

Jeff Rense is an American conspiracy theorist and radio talk-show host of the Jeff Rense Program, broadcast on US satellite radio via Republic Broadcasting Network (RBN) and Internet radio.[1]

Rense’s radio program and website, Rense.com,[2] cover subjects such as 9/11 conspiracy theories,[3] UFO reporting, paranormal phenomena, Holocaust denial,[4] Zionism, tracking of new diseases and possible resultant pandemics, environmental concerns (see chemtrails), animal rights, possible evidence of advanced ancient technology, geopolitical developments and emergent energy technologies, complementary and alternative medicine among other subjects.

Rense’s show has been noted as being among “conspiracy-oriented Internet radio shows that often feature antisemites and extremists” by the Anti-Defamation League, a non-profit organisation that opposes antisemitism.[5]

Pick and Choose. It’s so easy to come up with some shill to support your position.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

There are more like this.

87 dead. $2 of gasoline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

It became a case-study in Fire Investigation/Fire Inspection curriculum.
It wasn’t the first or last Arson I saw, nor the last time I’d see far more “innocents” killed or forever maimed, beyond the target of the arson.

So, is the issue body counts, or just bullets? Want to guess which is more life-altering, being burned or being shot? Which one is more survivable? Which has more pain?

Yeah, probably not, as it doesn’t fit your political agenda.

So much easier to just strike the match and walk away.

Again…like a meth addict upset about drug tests…you miss my point and yet make it clear to the rest of the world better than I could. Laws don’t make people good…laws can keep people who are already bad…and have a record of being bad…from getting their paws on guns easily. All without refusing anyone with a clean record the right to own a gun. As long as dumbasses keep buying the lies and defending the status quo…the NRA, gun lobbies, and other can just keep on making sure that criminals can get guns without a background check…because crooks buy, use, lose or dispose of guns, then need another soon. Ordinary folks buy a few guns and are out of the market…criminals are the source of lots of fast easy money for gun sellers…and gun sellers know it. Tighten the loopholes and a lot of guns stop hitting the streets…and stop getting into EXACTLY the wrong hands.

Again…like a meth addict upset about drug tests…you miss my point and yet make it clear to the rest of the world better than I could. Laws don’t make people good…laws can keep people who are already bad…and have a record of being bad…from getting their paws on guns easily. All without refusing anyone with a clean record the right to own a gun. As long as dumbasses keep buying the lies and defending the status quo…the NRA, gun lobbies, and other can just keep on making sure that criminals can get guns without a background check…because crooks buy, use, lose or dispose of guns, then need another soon. Ordinary folks buy a few guns and are out of the market…criminals are the source of lots of fast easy money for gun sellers…and gun sellers know it. Tighten the loopholes and a lot of guns stop hitting the streets…and stop getting into EXACTLY the wrong hands.

Teabaggers always find a way to defend illegal gun deals.

Teabaggers always find a way to defend illegal gun deals.

They pretty much prove that anyone can buy a handgun and that better restrictions should be in place.

They pretty much prove that anyone can buy a handgun and that better restrictions should be in place.

crimes are stopped by firearm owners at a rate of 4 to 1.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please provide proof of this “statistic”

crimes are stopped by firearm owners at a rate of 4 to 1.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please provide proof of this “statistic”

Citing a nut job with no credible data is proof of your ignorance.

Citing a nut job with no credible data is proof of your ignorance.

I looked into Kleck, the guy that Rense uses to justify his arguments. Kleck’s work has been widely discredited. You’ll have to forgive me if my numbers are off but the gist of what I found was that Kleck cites statistics that seem to hold no grip on reality. He used survey data that indicated that an enormous number of people claimed they defended themselves with a gun and had a high confidence that they wounded the assailant. Unfortunately, the number of incidents where people were sure they wounded an assailant were higher, by far, than the total number of gun shot injuries in the entire nation. By “far” I mean multiples higher.
He’s been accused of using poor sourcing and of extrapolating small survey pools out to national levels when the numbers clearly make no sense.

I looked into Kleck, the guy that Rense uses to justify his arguments. Kleck’s work has been widely discredited. You’ll have to forgive me if my numbers are off but the gist of what I found was that Kleck cites statistics that seem to hold no grip on reality. He used survey data that indicated that an enormous number of people claimed they defended themselves with a gun and had a high confidence that they wounded the assailant. Unfortunately, the number of incidents where people were sure they wounded an assailant were higher, by far, than the total number of gun shot injuries in the entire nation. By “far” I mean multiples higher.
He’s been accused of using poor sourcing and of extrapolating small survey pools out to national levels when the numbers clearly make no sense.

There are over 8000 gun deaths per year in the US. How many people died from arson?

There are over 8000 gun deaths per year in the US. How many people died from arson?

“”Two undercover New York cops …. “”

New York is Bankrupt. Maybe they should stop wasting money before the state has a fiscal collapse. How many millions of dollars does the New York state government spend on stuff like this.

Must have been a nice Junket for the cops. Fly to Arizona for a few weeks, Stay in a hotel and legally buy guns. A little vacation I wonder who these cops know to get a sweet detail like that?

The deals weren’t illegal silly person. That is why they are trying to pass a law. To make this illegal.

It says legal right in the title of the article.

Pretty much to take a vacation

The NRA is big business. My Brother’s in-law posted recently that he could extend a special offer to his friends. For just $600 I could get a life-time membership to the NRA. It’s apparently usually about a grand. (I told him I’d be happy to provide a life-time worth of NRA truck stickers for only $250).

The NRA is a business. It’s a very profitable one. They don’t sell representation as much as they sell fear.
The only way to keep up the demand is to gin up paranoia. If every potential NRA member, and every regular dues-payer realized that the Obama administration hadn’t proposed any laws to curtail gun ownership, what would that do to their income? Maybe the paranoid right-wing base would realize that nearly all Americans (even Lubrulz) don’t care if they keep a few guns to feel better about their shortcomings.

This is why we are flooded with paranoid conspiracies about disarmament, hero murder-fantasies, and bogus ‘research’.

We don’t care if Americans have a desert eagle to fuel your own personal hero-fantasies about saving your loved ones when ‘they’ break in your doors at night. We just don’t want it to be too easy for lunatics to get military-grade weapons.

If it’s as simple as just owning a gun to be safe (effective, hitting what you aim at). Why do they spend hours days, weeks, month and yes years training cops, combat troops, and other security forces in effective use.

Simply owning a plane doesn’t make you a fighter pilot. Simply owning a fast car doesn’t make you a NASCAR racer.

Simply owning a gun doesn’t make you a combat vet capable of receiving and effectively returning fire.

In fact, in the three examples above, the chance are you will probably end up killing or at least seriously injuring yourself WITHOUT the proper training,

0.7 percent of guns used in crimes are purchased at gun shows. (http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=247&issue=014). So the rights of 300 million Americans are to be sacrificed over such a stat. The left has no interest in crime, murder or gun crime rates. Leftists must do away with the 2nd amendment because it is not possible to RULE an armed public. Period.

Probably because Arizona guns are in New York.

Yet another person who thinks “proof” is defined as “there’s some shit about this somewhere on the interwebs”.

If it was an undercover report by The Times, I’m sure they paid for it, not the state.

My mom always asks me why a fly with a parachute. I tell her “If the plane goes down, do you think the inflatable seat will save me?”

Those gun dealers broke the law and should be prosecuted to its full extent. But their crimes should not be exploited to repeal, overturn, or abridge the second amendment. Just as the crimes of the bankers should be prosecuted and their crimes not be exploited to make honest money and honest money transactions illegal.

Dr. Matt, change your meds there son. I’m so anti-Palin/Savage/Limbaugh I qualify as the Worker’s Party posterboy. As a former medic, I’ll share that the #1 issue is the wholesale abandonment of meaningful mental health care.
The right doesn’t want to see them, nor pay for their care.
The left feels that an adjudication of mental illness is so stigmatizing, that people have the right to medicate or not, seek help or not.
From two vantage points, neither address the core issue: Our society has a vast population of homeless and mentally-ill or mentally challenged left completely to their own devices. Shameful.
The fact remains, guns are only one means to kill people. In my 18 plus years of NY-based on-street experience, I’ve seen far more options used far more frequently.

Nice try on the flame-bate dismissal, here’s wishing you luck at tearing down my credentials.

WTF is New York doing in Arizona?

And how safe is NY?

NYC is the world’s largest prison – you can Have it!

Did you read the article?

They aren’t technically dealers & broke no law.

I live in MS & gun shows are big here for the same reason, no background check, its a major fricking loophole that the right-wing does not want fixed.

Anyone with a state ID can buy from the Bubba’s at the touring gun shows & they sell a shit load of guns.

Thanks for another fucked-up policy Republicans.

and it is harder to buy a gun in NYC

please since I live in the south bronx I know better

please bloomberg have you no shame

all the best and be safe

JB

Thanks for pointing that out – I misread the article this morning. Yes, gun shows and the dealers who sell at them should be covered by laws that restrict selling to people who have been legally and fairly determined to not be qualified to own guns.

As for the rest of my comment, I stand by it.

Ah, the NRA is your source, eh? No conflict of interest there. Personally I like to get my pollution data from the oil & coal companies.

You’ve also missed the point of the article & investigation. The current Republican legislation has left a gaping loophole.

And you’re argument is that criminals & crazy lunatics should have access to guns?

Also, you’re tired old GOP troll tactics are so worn out, like its not possible to rule an armed public? Ha! What fantasy land do you live in?

And who writes your check to disperse Republican propaganda?

Period.

ps: 25% of the US population is under 18, so your 300 million number is off, not to mention that even if gun shows went away altogether, where oh where could people buy guns? Oh yeah, gun stores! Hmmm, so what awesome rights would we lose again?

Paid GOP trolls, can’t even make a coherent argument.

Dougie, unless you have not noticed we are being controlled pretty successfully even with an armed citizenry. Assault weapons and mega-magazine hand guns are available to, as this article shows, anyone with the money.

If you think for one minute that the Sound-Cannons and para-military equipment that are available to our masters could be rendered impotent by an armed population you have not thought through the street battle scenario.

What is really funny is that you are arming yourself to defeat a take-over by the left while the coporations have taken complete control of the leadership of this country.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,385048,00.html
http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenny/2009/09/27/police-experiment-with-new-weapon-on-protesters-during-g-20/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/sep/25/sonic-cannon-g20-pittsburgh

That you have determined it is the Left that is your enemy did not come from a vaccum. That thinking has been provided to you through Billions of dollars spent by the New World Order coporations. Now either wake up or get yourself to Walmart where you can do what you have been trained to do, Unconscious Consuming.

Far more guns come up from the Southeast coast than do from Southwestern states like Arizona.

Show an actual study, peer reviewed, and not some nut who pulls numbers out of his ass.

Wow, Bloomberg has nothing better to do with New Yorkers tax dollars than to send undercover cops to Arizona?

Seems to me I hear him moaning and groaning every stinking night on the TV about how short they are on the city budget …. but I guess wasting tax dollars only applies to other city agencies.

The difference is scientific method and peer review.

maybe they needed a new stash of ‘throw-downs”

the NRA is not a credible source, that’s like asking BP ‘was this spill your fault?’

Its because Bloomberg has a hard on for draconian gun laws. He thinks it ok for BILLIONAIRES like himself to impose their will on us, all the while his bodyguards are armed to the teeth, keeping the unwashed masses away from his private estate.

Billionaire or not, it is his business. He’s a mayer of a very big city with loads of gun crimes, many of those guns are purchased illegally as his investigation shows quite clearly.
There is nothing wrong whatsoever with trying to close down these loopholes that allow people to buy guns that shouldn’t.

Prohibitions don’t work, but I see nothing wrong with trying to make sure people don’t buy weapons that by law are not supposed to.

It is really quite amazing to me how so many get riled up over the idea of the slightest whisper of regulation of killing tools yet cannot imagine the Union surviving if made living tools (AKA HEALTH CARE) available to more /most/all Americans and guest workers.

I don’t understand gun nut OR right-wingnuts.

It’s not regulation, it’s on man from one state interfering in another state’s business. Bloomberg should keep his butt at home fixing NY’s problems. He is using tax dollars to push his own agenda.

You are uninformed, I suggest you go to a gun show and try to buy a gun “illegally”. 9 out of 10 vendors would kick your ass right at their table if you told them that you couldn’t pass a background check.

Let me guess……you must be a proctologist.

I have a family member who is an ATF agent and some years ago told me that they aren’t allowed to go to gun shows. Presumably because they would see flagrant violations and would ethically be required to act. That would anger the 2nd Amendment activists and create a shit-storm of political anguish. Personally, I own a bunch of guns and have never been to a gun show. If you want to buy a gun, go to a reputable gun shop and buy it. The gun shows should be shut down. I’ve always heard that “the rules don’t apply” at gun shows. It’s true.

Are you refering to Gary Kleck as a “nut”?

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

Florida State university seems to think differently of Mr. Kleck.

Here is “some shit about this” criminologist that wrote the study. What are your credentials again?

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php
http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/gkleck.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

Largely discredited by who? The Huffington post? I also find it interesting that Mr. Kleck is a self described Liberal Democrat. I wouldn’t have guessed that one.

They don’t even show us statistics here, how many people did they interview, etc, etc.

You are right when you used the word shill, because this one page “article” tells me nothing.

largely discredited by other people in his field, and by statisticians for his methodology. I’m unaware of his self-professed political leanings.

Not true,
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_US_state_has_the_biggest_prison_population

So you think it should be illegal for me to sell, loan, give away my personal property? These are gun owners legally selling their own property to someone else. Just like I can sell my car or my house or my dog. If it is not mine to do with as I please then it is not really mine.

You ever think the ‘Bad Guys’ might go outside of the state line to obtain these weapons for use in their home state? Think like a criminal and not in your own self interests. He was smart to do this.

The effective use of guns for self protection/self defense. Here are two links: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdeff.html and http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html. These are both links to the GUNCITE website. Excellent information on the defensive use of firearms and the perpetual attempts of leftists to take weapons from the American public.

Your house, car or dog should not have a killing potential. I read the story where a guy “legally” sold his “personal property” (48 semi-auto rifles) weekly. Close the gaps; this is not ok.

If you’ve never been to a gun show, never bought a gun at a gun show, then how would you know if the rules apply or not? I have been to gun shows, and I’ve bought guns at gun shows….I went through a background check right there, over the phone. I live in Michigan and the gun laws may be different in Arizona regarding private sales of firearms, but here in the MI you can sell a long gun (Rifle,shotgun,carbine) to anyone you choose as long as they are 18 and not a felon. You CANNOT sell a pistol that way. First you must get a purchase permit from the police station, and that comes with a background check, then you have 10 days to buy a pistol and before they let you walk out that door with your new gun they do another background check, just to make sure. Its not like we have no laws on this subject. Its just that most people are unaware of them.

Yet another person who thinks knowing someone’s “credentials” is a valid substitute for actually understanding their ideas.

Do the world a favor. Pick up a book on multivariate analysis and then actually *read* the Kleck study. Then read David Hemenway’s definitive takedown of Kleck’s methodology.

Of course, if you don’t feel like stretching yourself, I’ll just tell you that Hemenway has a doctorate from Harvard. That should be good enough for you.

You don’t think cars and dogs have “killing potential”? My Doberman disagrees.

I think you missed the point.

Why would anyone think Arizonians give a flying f*** about any of this?

Be sure to include links to how many people kill themselves, their relatives and theit friends not knowing the first thing about weapon’s safety or even having trigger locks.

More people are killed by firearms in this country than any where else in the entire world.

And there’s a reason: MORE FIREARMS.

The point isn’t relegated to Arizona, it’s the fact that firearms are being sold all over the country, to people who readily admit they shouldn’t have them.

Tell me the last time you heard, firsthand, and not via Fox…where someone defended themselves with their own firearm.

Personal property?

So can we assume that if you own a hand grenade or a pipe bomb…you should be able to sell it to anyone you want?

What are you…twelve years old??

Already Brain Dead – You sound like an uneducated moron.

Already Brain Dead is just another moronic teabagger.

Ignore him.

Yes, he’s a gun nut that uses bad stats. No one except his fellow gun nuts takes his numbers seriously.

Once again, instead of ‘appealing to authority’, show peer reviewed studies in reputable journals. As an e.g of Kleck’s ‘work’ he claims on his CV that Psychological Reports, Missoula, MT, is a peer reveiwed journal. This ‘journal’ solicits volunteers to review submitted articles.

JAMA it ain’t.

Why would you consider finding something like this out, and exposing it to the public, is a waste of taxpaer dollars?

Other than, of course, being a teabagging dolt?

Are you saying on the street or at a gun show?

There’s a difference.

Guess I misunderstood Freaky Fried Chicken to say NY has the largest prison system, sorry

I am sure there is when a 9MM slug hits someone in there face eh?

but indeed you are right there is a difference I am just not seeing it so well

at this time

I defended myself from a mugger with my legally concealed pistol. Is that first hand enough for you? Although I’m sure you would have rather had me begging for mercy at the feet of this scumbag. Thank god idealistic idiots like you don’t make the laws.

Awww, do my opinions make you uncomfortable?

No, actually thats not good enough for me. Why don’t you post a link, so I can educate myself.

No, actually thats not good enough for me. Why don’t you post a link, so I can educate myself.

Oh, “other people”…….I stand corrected.

You seem to be missing the point. If it was illegal to sell a gun without background checks, cops could bust sellers who violate the law. When sellers know they risk going to prison if they don’t run a check, the vast majority of them will run the check. Period.

You put laws on the books so you have a means of action to control behavior. No law means no authority to act. Do you suggest we don’t bother making laws for drunk driving since drunks will drive anyway? how about no laws for rape since rapists will rape anyway? child abuse? murder? just dump all laws since they “don’t make people behave a certain way”?

Technically speaking since the second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, doesn’t that mean, the right to keep and bear arms requires proof of citizenship and nothing more?

After all, it doesn’t say shall not be infringed unless A, B or C, so why do we allow them to put restrictions on us in the first place?

America.. 200 plus years of pussification in progress.

PS, better have your drivers “license” handy, even if you’re only “traveling”. Yeah that’s another unconstitutional ruse they play on us.

Looks like I got someones skirt ruffled. Aww, whats a matter buddy, don’t like opposing views? Are you not in this for the discussion?

And the criminals would care? They would find that 10th guy that will LEGALLY sell you a gun that you couldn’t buy from a licensed dealer. .. you’ve totally missed the point, and apparently don’t understand why laws are created in the first place. And if you were an honest champion of responsible gun ownership who wanted to ensure criminals had a much harder time getting guns you’d support closing loopholes making it legal for known criminals to get guns.

I have one big problem with this. They said they were doing this investigation as a result of what Jared Lee Loughner did; but, he bought the gun he used from a store and he passed the check the store ran on him. So, my question then becomes, how is this related to that? Because, he passed a background check and he still ended up using the gun to kill people! Background checks don’t really prevent bad people, who are not yet in the system, from doing evil things with guns! I just wish that the people at Raw Story could see that fact!

http://weeklyreflectionsofchrist.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/teddyhcraig

“Next, “the gun Jared Laughner used” was sold to an undercover? Wow. I thought it was still in-evidence, but I guess the AZ budget deficit demands drastic measures.”

That’s not in the article. The article said “clips like what Jared used” (vis a vis, high capacity).

Speaking of which, you have a link to back up your claim? Never mind, I’ll give you one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Guess whose NOT first on the list? Idiot.

You still seem confused. If I posted a link, that would be *me* educating *you*. If you want to educate yourself, have at it. Personal responsibility is not just about assembling your own private arsenal. It’s also about knowing how to use Teh Google.

“technically speaking” the second amendment only applies to weapons that were in existance at the time it was written.

Don’t believe me? We have laws about telephone privacy and they don’t apply to the Internet even if it is passing over a phone line. Old laws do not apply to new technology.

Um, enforcing responsible gun ownership isn’t shitting on the rights of 300 million people. I suppose you’ll next argue that laws against drunk driving infringe on the rights of 300 million people when only a few 10s of thousands of people die every year from drunk driving?

Your link actually proves his point.

Multiply those rates by the population of the country and the US comes out on top.

Read what he said again carefully: “More people are killed by firearms in this country than any where else in the entire world.”

Again thanks for providing a link to prove his point.

Oh frantaylor, your so funny!

Are you sure you can read? Here try again.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Really?

I signed a recording deal a lifetime ago where they made specific note that I was signing away rights to means of distribution “not yet invented”. In fact it didn’t end there. It even defined territory to include undiscovered planets! Talk about covering your bases.

But if there are no stipulations as such in our founding documents why would we assume that arms meant these or those and not just anything that can be used for fighting or hunting as the word itself is defined?

http://jpfo.org/
http://www.pinkpistols.org/

I understand that the 2nd amendment allows the populace the bear arms…but nowhere does it say that the populace is allowed to bear bullets or ammo.

I think you’ve missed my point. Criminals don’t care. The only guys going to gun shows saying “hey, can I buy that gun, I cant pass a background check” are undercover cops. BTW, it is ILLEGAL to sell a firearm to someone who verbally mentions that they cant pass the NICS check. Those vendors that sold those weapons are breaking the law ALREADY and they should be punished.

Ssshhh. You’re spoiling the disinformation attempt.

And Mubarak let the prisoners escape…..
what a better way to push your agenda than creating havoc, right?

When you criminalize weapons, only the criminals are armed.

Lol, thanks for the clarification.

Why don’t you educate me then, and provide a link? OR you could just shut the fuck up…I’m cool with either of those choices.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

I’m gonna go with option C: point at you and laugh. Seems like everyone else on this thread is doing it…

BTW Fran, thanks for proving MY point.

Spoken like a true fascist! Great Job, after you get done stomping on Jews with your jackboot they might even give you an armband.

This is quite clearly not about criminalizing the ownership of weapons.
The subject here is the fact many that sell weapons at gun shows are selling them illegally.

In no way is this topic about banning guns.

Nor does it say “everone gets a gun”.

Edit:
I didn’t see your previous posts, you’re 100 percent correct with all your posts.

You’re correct with what goes on at guns shows, most of them.
But the subject here is about illegal sales at guns shows where the seller is supposed to do the same background checks as you’ve described.

I’m against trying to take guns away from people because it would be impossible to do so in America without complete chaos and another civil war. This is about enforcing the current law(s), not banning guns. This is about how those current laws are broken routinely by some sellers at guns shows.

Anyone that preaches doing away with the second amendment is full of baloney.

Look up the word “fascist”. Seriously.

“You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

You make the two most important points on this subject.
Criminals don’t care, they will get a gun when they want because there is always someone to sell them one.
And it is already illegal for the few that sell to folks that declare they cannot legally buy one, and they should be punished.

Good for you, that is why we have conceal carry laws!!

Listen up everyone!!Already_Dead is right on the money here!!!!

Actually, background checks DO keep violent felons from buying guns at legitimate gun dealers. I know people who have been denied. It would work better if we closed all the loopholes. Your assertion that background checks do no good is erroneous.

Yes, Loughner was not a convicted felon, therefore, he passed the background check.
Even though its mentioned in this article, the Tucson shootings have NOTHING to do with this story. (Yes, I live in Tucson and legally own guns.)

“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.”

When you’re quote mining, remember that other people can easily look up the rest of the quote you conveniently forgot to mention. It looks to me like the 2nd amendment allows for an armed Nat’l Guard, but does not say anything about every yahoo on the street packing an arsenal. Put that in your A,B&C and smoke it.
Also, a driver’s license is for operating your vehicle on publicly built roads. If you want to drive only on privately owned roads, you’re perfectly within your rights, license or no.
There’s plenty to complain about in this country. Try to stick to valid arguments if you want to make a point.

Joe, unfortunately I didn’t take a screenshot. Evidently my comment forced a re-write.
I do have a dozen progressive people on a email list who saw the earlier version, and they were equally amused at the editorial gaffe.

Thanks man. You know, This is why the right to carry is SO important. Most people out there don’t know what its like to confront a predator, its fucking scary as hell. My hands were shaking out of control after it was all over with (maybe even a little bit while it was happening). I know that I got lucky, this guy tried to rob me without a weapon, he thought that since he was bigger than me he could take what he wanted from me. Lucky for me that a well aimed pistol and an authoritative tone sent this guy running. I don’t even know what else to say about it. I’ve never written about it before and trust me it happened so fast, it seemed unreal at the time. I hope it never happens again. I re-play the scenario over in my mind and it scares the shit out of me to think about being in that situation and not having my gun.

Most people have never had to face that situation. I haven’t, and I’m lucky for that.
I think more would understand if they’d been in your shoes!
Good thing you didn’t have to take a shot, but if you had, I feel the same way. Good for you for defending yourself with the legal means of a conceal carry permit and a cool head on your shoulders.

Nice! I like that quote!

OK, how bout this; Spoken like a true jackbooted thug! Great job, after you get done trampling the liberties of your fellow citizens with your doublespeak and your iron fist enforcers they might even give you an armband.

You like that better?

Nor does it say “no one gets a gun”

Or you could do that, I RESPECT your right to choose. I’m not trying to take that away from you.

guns also save between 800,000 and 2.5 million lives per year in this country alone.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html

http://www.pinkpistols.org/
http://jpfo.org/
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html

OK, so what loopholes do you think need to be closed?

You are indeed correct. It is incredible, people will say “if a bad guy really wants a gun he will get one BUT” and the but means only NON-bad guys are prevented from exercising their RIGHT. Not privilege, right. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty simple and plain English…..ya think?

You are indeed correct. It is incredible, people will say “if a bad guy really wants a gun he will get one BUT” and the but means only NON-bad guys are prevented from exercising their RIGHT. Not privilege, right. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty simple and plain English…..ya think?

You are indeed correct. It is incredible, people will say “if a bad guy really wants a gun he will get one BUT” and the but means only NON-bad guys are prevented from exercising their RIGHT. Not privilege, right. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty simple and plain English…..ya think?

Actually, it is stating that because the government will have a well regulated militia, the people’s right to be armed in similar fashion shall not be infringed. You don’t have to take my word for it, Thomas Jefferson’s commentary on the subject is highly available for your discernment.

Actually, it is stating that because the government will have a well regulated militia, the people’s right to be armed in similar fashion shall not be infringed. You don’t have to take my word for it, Thomas Jefferson’s commentary on the subject is highly available for your discernment.

Actually, it is stating that because the government will have a well regulated militia, the people’s right to be armed in similar fashion shall not be infringed. You don’t have to take my word for it, Thomas Jefferson’s commentary on the subject is highly available for your discernment.

Again, you are wrong……technically the idea is that any and all arms a militia (army) would possess would be available to the citizens as well.

Again, you are wrong……technically the idea is that any and all arms a militia (army) would possess would be available to the citizens as well.

Again, you are wrong……technically the idea is that any and all arms a militia (army) would possess would be available to the citizens as well.

I guess that is why it is FACT that the cities with the strictest gun laws in the USA also have the highest crime rates, and vice versa?

I guess that is why it is FACT that the cities with the strictest gun laws in the USA also have the highest crime rates, and vice versa?

I guess that is why it is FACT that the cities with the strictest gun laws in the USA also have the highest crime rates, and vice versa?

Houses don’t explode? Get used for crime? Cars never are instruments of death? Dogs don’t maul or kill? You really are stupis, aren’t you. A plastic spork can kill.

Houses don’t explode? Get used for crime? Cars never are instruments of death? Dogs don’t maul or kill? You really are stupis, aren’t you. A plastic spork can kill.

Houses don’t explode? Get used for crime? Cars never are instruments of death? Dogs don’t maul or kill? You really are stupis, aren’t you. A plastic spork can kill.

The ATF was handing out literature at a gun show here recently….at more than one show. You are full of it. Of course, the ATF is illegal as hell. They were supposed to be a tax enforcement entity and nothing more. Since when do enforcement arms and not elected officials get to make laws? Of course, by law the FBI should not be making arrests, as was the case originally, they were for investigation, not arrest. Look it up…….

The ATF was handing out literature at a gun show here recently….at more than one show. You are full of it. Of course, the ATF is illegal as hell. They were supposed to be a tax enforcement entity and nothing more. Since when do enforcement arms and not elected officials get to make laws? Of course, by law the FBI should not be making arrests, as was the case originally, they were for investigation, not arrest. Look it up…….

The ATF was handing out literature at a gun show here recently….at more than one show. You are full of it. Of course, the ATF is illegal as hell. They were supposed to be a tax enforcement entity and nothing more. Since when do enforcement arms and not elected officials get to make laws? Of course, by law the FBI should not be making arrests, as was the case originally, they were for investigation, not arrest. Look it up…….

Type your comment here.I

It is amazing some people claim to love their country but hate the very constitution that madkes it what it is.

Type your comment here.I

It is amazing some people claim to love their country but hate the very constitution that madkes it what it is.

Type your comment here.I

It is amazing some people claim to love their country but hate the very constitution that madkes it what it is.

Do you sell 48 of them each weekend? Are they used in the drug wars in Mexico?

Do you sell 48 of them each weekend? Are they used in the drug wars in Mexico?

Do you sell 48 of them each weekend? Are they used in the drug wars in Mexico?

I think he has two accounts and is making ups stories only to answer himself with his other account. I call B.S.

I think he has two accounts and is making ups stories only to answer himself with his other account. I call B.S.

I think he has two accounts and is making ups stories only to answer himself with his other account. I call B.S.

We have several firearms at home. I tell my sons (adult and late teen) that if they are stored safely and properly, there will never be time to use them as defense. They are for the range. We will use our dogs and the sword if it ever came to that which it most likely will not.

We have several firearms at home. I tell my sons (adult and late teen) that if they are stored safely and properly, there will never be time to use them as defense. They are for the range. We will use our dogs and the sword if it ever came to that which it most likely will not.

We have several firearms at home. I tell my sons (adult and late teen) that if they are stored safely and properly, there will never be time to use them as defense. They are for the range. We will use our dogs and the sword if it ever came to that which it most likely will not.

You thunk wrong.

You thunk wrong.

You thunk wrong.

Sorry for popping in…..

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html

Sorry for popping in…..

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html

i understand the first amendment allows people to speak freely but it doesn’t say that they can do it in earshot of other people. LON

i understand the first amendment allows people to speak freely but it doesn’t say that they can do it in earshot of other people. LON

i understand the first amendment allows people to speak freely but it doesn’t say that they can do it in earshot of other people. LON

hey artor ya think the king of england okay ed the forming of “national guard units” to fight the british regulars?

hey artor ya think the king of england okay ed the forming of “national guard units” to fight the british regulars?

hey artor ya think the king of england okay ed the forming of “national guard units” to fight the british regulars?

you know don’t you that if they took away our guns no one would ever die again. not only that but the ones in the ground just might pop back up.

you know don’t you that if they took away our guns no one would ever die again. not only that but the ones in the ground just might pop back up.

you know don’t you that if they took away our guns no one would ever die again. not only that but the ones in the ground just might pop back up.

absolutely, since pot is a controlled substance it is impossible to get. drug laws have effectively eliminated the use of illegal drugs in this country. gun laws if passed would also protect the citizenry equally well.

absolutely, since pot is a controlled substance it is impossible to get. drug laws have effectively eliminated the use of illegal drugs in this country. gun laws if passed would also protect the citizenry equally well.

absolutely, since pot is a controlled substance it is impossible to get. drug laws have effectively eliminated the use of illegal drugs in this country. gun laws if passed would also protect the citizenry equally well.

[...] the Gun Show Loophole Posted on February 1, 2011 by UTMB| Leave a comment Undercover operation reveals how gun buyers can legally avoid background checks Although prospective gun buyers are required to pass a federal background check when purchasing [...]

No, but what does that have to do with the US? Do you think your collection of handguns & hunting rifles is going to hold off the US Army & our militarized police if it comes to that? We can have free guns & imagine some Red Dawn testosterone fantasy, but while we’re waiting for that day that’s not likely to come, we’ll continue to have rampant gun violence, with real people getting killed every day.

As for the Nat’l Guard, I’m unhappy that they have already been subverted. The President should not have the authority to order a state’s guard units off to foreign wars. I think that’s a much more important issue that Joe Six-pack having his ak-47 knockoff.

So where’s the argument that we should all get tanks & bombers?

Odd, the mexican deuf lords have full auto m-16′s and grenade launchers…you cannot, I repeat CANNOT walk into an el paso gun shop and buy those items, no matter what they tell you on CNN. Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get guns, gun laws only serve to make the citizens unarmed targets.

Odd, the mexican deuf lords have full auto m-16′s and grenade launchers…you cannot, I repeat CANNOT walk into an el paso gun shop and buy those items, no matter what they tell you on CNN. Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get guns, gun laws only serve to make the citizens unarmed targets.

There shouldn’t be,…..guns are constitutionally protected items the populace is allowed to own, not like drugs…the idea that criminals can get them easily but not citizens is anathema to our civil rights. Our ORIGINAL civil rights….the second amendment is the original equal rights amendment. A 240 pound rapist can easily overpower a 120 pound female, but 357 magnum gives the woman equality.

There shouldn’t be,…..guns are constitutionally protected items the populace is allowed to own, not like drugs…the idea that criminals can get them easily but not citizens is anathema to our civil rights. Our ORIGINAL civil rights….the second amendment is the original equal rights amendment. A 240 pound rapist can easily overpower a 120 pound female, but 357 magnum gives the woman equality.

Selly privately owned firearms is NOT illegal.

Selly privately owned firearms is NOT illegal.

Maybe we can enact laws controlling the first amendment next and stop idiots like you from speaking freely as well……that is an abused right and needs to be reigned in. Maybe you should be required to have civics classes, tests passed on the meaning of the constitution, pass a background check, maybe at least a bachelor’s degree, in order to speak freely?

Maybe we can enact laws controlling the first amendment next and stop idiots like you from speaking freely as well……that is an abused right and needs to be reigned in. Maybe you should be required to have civics classes, tests passed on the meaning of the constitution, pass a background check, maybe at least a bachelor’s degree, in order to speak freely?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…….it speaks for itself. Crooks can always get guns, you are only hurting the good people with your asinine laws…..

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…….it speaks for itself. Crooks can always get guns, you are only hurting the good people with your asinine laws…..

But yet you get all of your info from a left-controlled media that relies on the first amendment to facilitate their desecration of the second amendment.

But yet you get all of your info from a left-controlled media that relies on the first amendment to facilitate their desecration of the second amendment.

A…do you know this personally….or just parroting BS you have heard. B…..it is difficult to take defense classes without having a weapon. C…..the second amendment does not and should not REQUIRE training to own a weapon, just as the first does not require credentials to speak freely nor to practice a religion.

Type your comment here.

A Glock 19 is magazine fed, not clip fed.

But of course…..every felon drives to Arizona to buy a cheap used gun rather than buy one on the street in minutes…..just like all those mexican full auto’s and grenade launchers were bought in Texas gun shops, right. Wanna buy a bridge?

Criminals buy from criminals, on the street, where there will never be accountability.

I am the pilot of my own destiny. I choose if I am armed, if I wear a seat belt, if I fly with a parachute, if I eat red meat…….thankfully the libs have not removed my RIGHTS to make these (most of these) decisions for myself, yet.

Who cares….the law (constitution) is quite clear…..nothing left to argue. Thom Jefferson’s credentials are beyond dispute.

Drunk driving and rape are not constitutional rights.

Which is why people have been arguing over the meaning of the Second Amendment for 200 years. Nice try, champ.

So how many people are killed annually in the USA from 100 yds away? With a Glock 19? Spoken like a true idiot who has never touched a firearm.

Right on!

“You have a suspicious mind mister”

But you would be wrong about the bullshit. You try living in Detroit for 10 years, see what happens to you. Dont get me wrong I love Detroit, but there are some bad people there.

A sword?! Holy shit! and I thought my house was well defended!

I dont think it would be a bad idea to collect detailed information on shootings, its something that I think we could all benefit from. This article is from 2000, do you know if they actually implemented this system?

People argue over all sorts of things…..usually to try and impose their will where it should not be imposed. The commentaries of the founding fathers are still available for your perusal. The arguments are unequivocal. Of course, the same libs are now trying to remove “hate speech” as not being first amendment protected. The founding fathers well understood that “nice” speech doesn’t need protecting, only distressing or hateful words NEED to be protected speech. Libs claim to love rights and freedoms, but their actions belie the truth.

How many died from car accidents in which nobody was even drunk? heart disease (better outlaw transfats and corn dogs), etc…….no matter how “safe: you MAKE us be, we will still die, go figure.

so your argument is that we shouldn’t try to mitigate danger? I think we should also remove bumpers and seat belts from cars.. that’s just extra weight we’re carrying around. I always thought gun safeties got in the way too.

Your reasoning is flawless.

Selling them to people who have been fairly and legally deemed not competent to own firearms should be against the law.

Guns ownership and control of gun ownership are being hyped and exploited by both sides for the purposes of fracturing any solidarity the populace may find in its dissatisfaction with the government – both sides are wrong in my opinion and go to extremes. Some people should NOT be permitted to own guns because of the unexpected and irreparable dangers such persons present. Banning guns is also wrong. Guns in the hands of responsible people, including responsible children, should continue to be a protected right under the second amendment.

Let’s teach our children reason and responsibility so that they can enjoy their innate rights. Freedom is worthless without responsibility, it is chaos only, like a gun in the hands of an orangutan.

Be honest now: you’ve never read a single Federalist paper, have you? If you had, you’d have at least managed one relevant citation.

Be honest now: you’ve never read a single Federalist paper, have you? If you had, you’d have at least managed one relevant citation.

Spoken like a true idiot who makes wild assumptions. You have no idea if I have every touched or fired a firearm.

And, too stupid to understand the point of my comment. Let’s try again:
IT’S SOOOOO MUCH EASIER TO JUST IMPULSIVELY PULL THAT TRIGGER WITHOUT
THINKING ABOUT IT.

If it would make a difference I could site several stories of friends who did just what I was pointing out…. pulled that trigger impulsively in a situation where neither their life or property where being threatened and there where viable alternatives to there impulsive action. They are fortunate they didn’t kill someone and sitting in prison right now. Not everyone who is not an ex-felon or mental patient makes the right decisions all the time.

Just to be clear, I have touched, and yes, even fired guns many times. In fact, I was denied purchase of a gun in Colorado because of a non-violent felony conviction 48 years ago that was supposed to have been expunged because I was senteced on the Federal Youth Corrections Act. So, yeah I do have some problem with gun laws. All I wanted was a varmint rifle to shoot dogs near my house that were infected with bubonic plague.

But then, based on your comment, it’s obvious it would make no difference.

Spoken like a true idiot who makes wild assumptions. You have no idea if I have every touched or fired a firearm.

And, too stupid to understand the point of my comment. Let’s try again:
IT’S SOOOOO MUCH EASIER TO JUST IMPULSIVELY PULL THAT TRIGGER WITHOUT
THINKING ABOUT IT.

If it would make a difference I could site several stories of friends who did just what I was pointing out…. pulled that trigger impulsively in a situation where neither their life or property where being threatened and there where viable alternatives to there impulsive action. They are fortunate they didn’t kill someone and sitting in prison right now. Not everyone who is not an ex-felon or mental patient makes the right decisions all the time.

Just to be clear, I have touched, and yes, even fired guns many times. In fact, I was denied purchase of a gun in Colorado because of a non-violent felony conviction 48 years ago that was supposed to have been expunged because I was senteced on the Federal Youth Corrections Act. So, yeah I do have some problem with gun laws. All I wanted was a varmint rifle to shoot dogs near my house that were infected with bubonic plague.

But then, based on your comment, it’s obvious it would make no difference.

your numbers are fanciful. I looked through your first link.. all the time I’ve got.
Where do you get 800k to 2.5 million lives saved per year?

compare the assertions on that page and tell me if this makes sense…

There were 10,886 deaths by firearm in 2008 but you claim that for ever one person killed by a firearm, there are 80-250 lives saved? What constitutes a saved life? You chamber a round in your 12-guage when the neighbor’s pot-head kid is fiddling with your doornob and you’ve saved every life on the block?

In the 1993 survey, 0.5% of households claimed a gun was used to save a life(lives). If we extrapolate for the population in 1993 that should account for 1.3 million people over 5 years (the period of the survey).. that’s 260,000 which I still have trouble believing.

I don’t suppose you notice a lot of these numbers are framed in terms of “they THOUGHT someone ‘ALMOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN killed’”

Wow. You don’t get any more solid that that. People’s personal opinions of what may have happened but didn’t.

Kleck’s work suffers from the same sloppiness. One of his studies stated that the number of people who claimed to have fired at an attacker and who were sure they hit him … well that number was several times higher than the number of actual gun shot wounds in the US that year. Oops. I guess that you can’t always trust people when they claim they did something heroic.

your numbers are fanciful. I looked through your first link.. all the time I’ve got.
Where do you get 800k to 2.5 million lives saved per year?

compare the assertions on that page and tell me if this makes sense…

There were 10,886 deaths by firearm in 2008 but you claim that for ever one person killed by a firearm, there are 80-250 lives saved? What constitutes a saved life? You chamber a round in your 12-guage when the neighbor’s pot-head kid is fiddling with your doornob and you’ve saved every life on the block?

In the 1993 survey, 0.5% of households claimed a gun was used to save a life(lives). If we extrapolate for the population in 1993 that should account for 1.3 million people over 5 years (the period of the survey).. that’s 260,000 which I still have trouble believing.

I don’t suppose you notice a lot of these numbers are framed in terms of “they THOUGHT someone ‘ALMOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN killed’”

Wow. You don’t get any more solid that that. People’s personal opinions of what may have happened but didn’t.

Kleck’s work suffers from the same sloppiness. One of his studies stated that the number of people who claimed to have fired at an attacker and who were sure they hit him … well that number was several times higher than the number of actual gun shot wounds in the US that year. Oops. I guess that you can’t always trust people when they claim they did something heroic.

In fact, let me help you out. Go look up “Article 1, section 8, clause 16″ and read it. I suspect it will double your first-hand knowledge of the Constitution.

In fact, let me help you out. Go look up “Article 1, section 8, clause 16″ and read it. I suspect it will double your first-hand knowledge of the Constitution.

A…Yes I do. &…no Fox talk from here. B…learning to use a weapon WAS MY POINT. C…who mention the 1st and 2nd amendments.

Hey Tolstoy, good cut and paste job. Would you like a cookie?

Regardless as to how it looks to you, those who lived back then and pushed publicly for and against the passing of the constitution thought differently.

They being the framers, and we being 200 plus years removed from the situation I figured, I’d let one of them tell us what they meant by militia. Besides, I suspect George Mason is a little better versed on the subject than we.

—–
George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.” Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a “militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves.” The list goes on and on.
–
By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the “whole body of the people.” Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the “collective” right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, “remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.”

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by “the people,” not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the “people,” — a “term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution,” specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term “well regulated” ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).
—–
Read more on that here.

And as far as the drivers license issue goes, have you seen this yet right here on RAW?

Georgia Republican’s bill would do away with driver’s licenses

So next time you want to bring your opinion to a fact fight go right ahead, just bring a pillow your your pompus ass.

Hey Tolstoy, good cut and paste job. Would you like a cookie?

Regardless as to how it looks to you, those who lived back then and pushed publicly for and against the passing of the constitution thought differently.

They being the framers, and we being 200 plus years removed from the situation I figured, I’d let one of them tell us what they meant by militia. Besides, I suspect George Mason is a little better versed on the subject than we.

—–
George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.” Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a “militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves.” The list goes on and on.
–
By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the “whole body of the people.” Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the “collective” right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, “remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.”

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by “the people,” not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the “people,” — a “term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution,” specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term “well regulated” ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).
—–
Read more on that here.

And as far as the drivers license issue goes, have you seen this yet right here on RAW?

Georgia Republican’s bill would do away with driver’s licenses

So next time you want to bring your opinion to a fact fight go right ahead, just bring a pillow your your pompus ass.

That’s what I like about liberals. No sources of information are legitimate unless linked with the ACLU, Al Gore, the Huffington Post, the NY Times of Barak Hussein Obama.

[...] undercover private investigators to Arizona to purchase firearms….. legally! According to Raw Story; The report, obtained by the New York Times, detailed multiple instances where dealers at Arizona [...]

Uh, DOUGIE?? No, Miss Flagg. I’m not of the typical liberal persuasion. Also, 100 million armed citizens plus the 65%+ of the military which would NOT follow the orders of Hussein and his minions would make the winning team. But don’t worry…we’ll be fighting for your rights too. In any event, the Founders based the right to keep and bear arms on providing the people with  the means of overthrowing a tyrant or criminal state. I happen to agree with them. As you consider it a useless enterprise, please remain indoors and stay out of our way when the fighting begins.

That’s what I like about liberals. No sources of information are “credible” unless linked with the ACLU, the NY Times, the Huffington Post, the WaPo or the Hussein White House.

You’ll find answers to most of those questions on GUNCITE. It is quite good. Apparently you believe the rights of the American people and their ability to have the means to overthrow a tyrant, should be declared void because of accidents, stupidity or the activities of criminals. That means the nation should be ruled by children, mrons and thugs. Hey….wait a minute…..

[...] Bloomberg is at it again. It turns out that things things are running so smoothly in NYC, that the Mayor’s Office can devote resources to send undercover private investigators to Arizona to purchase firearms….. legally! According to Raw Story; [...]

Drunk driving and the God given and Constitutional rght to keep and bear arms. Yeah…those have a LOT in common. Is your house built of straw too, or do you just use it for your arguments.