In response to:

Doubling Down on Anti-Gun News

J. Galt Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 10:32 AM
The purpose of the second amendment is to enable the citizenry to oppose a tyrannical government. The present tyrannical government is intent on disarming the citizenry. The mainstream media, the propaganda arm of the tyrannical government, is actively supporting this objective. Marxist is based on the masses enslaved to serve the elite.
ericynot Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 12:00 PM
Galt,

No one is trying to "disarm the citizenry". Like it or not, while the Constitution gives us rights, those rights are not absolute. For instance, the First A protects free speech, but laws limit speech by prohibiting slander, libel, fraud, etc. The Fourth A says police must show probable cause and get a warrant before searching you, but the Supreme Court has ruled warrantless DUI checkpoints legal.

The Second A gives us the right to own firearms, but that right is not absolute. The government can legally impose some restrictions (as they have long done on full auto weapons). They can legally restrict clip sizes, impose registration requirements, etc.
DWinch Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 12:09 PM
"Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians." - Aaron Zelman
CardSenseJimmyBond Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 12:14 PM
Eric,

It may be legal but it doesn't make it right. Unlike Dirty Harry, I'd love my attacker to think I'd exhausted my ammo only to know I still have a couple...
rficara Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 12:20 PM
Actually the Framers WANTED the People to have all the commonly held arms of the day up to CANNON. The "assault rifle" of the day was the English Long Land Pattern Brown Bess musket. A trained Redcoat could fire 5 shots/minute where a skilled woodsman with a long rifle needed a minimum of a minute to fire two shots and had no bayonet either. Battles started with musket fire and were settled with the bayonet.

The cannon was needed to soften up the other side or to break a cavalry charge.

The modern musket is the AR-15 or (if you live in a Class III state) an M-16. The modern cannon is the Browning .50 caliber machine gun, the large bore mortar or the recoiless rifle.

Ray
ericynot Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 12:44 PM
I had to get rid of my Browning .50 cal. Too many noise complaints.
Jim-P Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 1:01 PM
Ray,
I agree 100%
Good Comment...
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 5:51 PM
eric,you're a LIAR.
several Congresscritters have stated they would ban all guns,totally disarming citizens.
it's a matter of record.
the anti-gun lobby has said they intend to ban one class of guns at a time,until they achieve their desired total ban.

learn something.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 5:52 PM
eric,you're a LIAR.
several Congresscritters have stated they would ban all guns,totally disarming citizens.
it's a matter of record.
the anti-gun lobby has said they intend to ban one class of guns at a time,until they achieve their desired total ban.

learn something.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 5:55 PM
eric,you're a LIAR.
several Congresscritters have stated they would ban all guns,totally disarming citizens.
it's a matter of record.
the anti-gun lobby has said they intend to ban one class of guns at a time,until they achieve their desired total ban.

learn something.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 5:59 PM
the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.
mdoe Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 6:05 PM
If they could get away with they would and they are taking the first step. No other amendments has the phrase "Shall not be Infringed". I'd like to hear your definition on what that means to you.

What would you think if they passed a law making the all media except government controlled ones illegal? They didn't infringe on the 1st A, you can still talk, you have free speech. Of course what you say will be severely limited but you are free to chose from the list of approved messages.

Hey wait. That might be happening now with the MSM. obama was wining about FOX and limbaugh not towing the line.
ericynot Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 6:13 PM
mdoe,

The First Amendment prohibits making any media illegal.

It says "Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
ericynot Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 6:14 PM
Jay,

Which Congresspersons have stated they would ban all guns?
poorgrandchildren.com2 Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 8:42 PM
"Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Unless the speech uses new technology such as radio and TV. Enter the FCC.
Jim-P Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 10:37 AM

Everyone can imagine the horror of a madman shooting up an elementary school, especially the horror of losing your six-year-old in the melee. But at some point, the news media's wallowing in Newtown reminds one of Don Henley's satirical song "Dirty Laundry," and how the anchors' eyes gleam through plane-crash news because "it's interesting when people die; we love dirty laundry."

The "O" word that defines the media at times like these isn't "objective." It's "opportunistic."

To be sure, the "news" manufacturers aren't hoping for a school shooting. But that doesn't mean they aren't ready to exploit it. Newsweek columnist...