A New Shot At History

Firearm accidents? There were 13 deaths last year by botched abortions. 40,000 auto fatal accidents.
How many firearm accidents? Probably less than the number from bee stings.

Policemen do not prevent crime. They collect data and fill out the paperwork after the victim has suffered his fate. If the first skyjacking had been met with armed resistance in 1964, there would have never been a 2nd one. If one teacher at Columbine had been armed, the death toll might have been cut by 2/3.

Getting a gun is easy in D.C. unless you are law abiding. Then you can't. Proponents of the ban argue that guns in the hands of law abiding residents would make the problem worse. Compelling if remotely true.

The myth that gun availability leads to crime is well destroyed by comprehensive research from all quarters.
Only the Kellerman study which is widely refuted suggests other wise. Even Kellerman himslef said that if his wife was being raped he would want her to have a gun.

If the reporter finds the Second Amendment Maddeningly confusing the amici briefs in the Heller case will clear that right up. Read all of them for and against then research them. You will no longer be maddened.

???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.??? The constitution is clear and absolute in its definition of the right to bear arms by all responsible U.S. citizens. The constitution was also as clear in respect to property rights. The fifth amendment in regard to property rights says ???nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation??? The five to four decision by the Supreme Court in Kilo vs. New London distorted this to mean if someone has money they can have property confiscated from U.S. citizens and turned over to the privileged to profit immensely, yet not allowing the property owner to profit from their own speculation. The right to bear arms is an important right to us, we need to require that all parties address this issue in the sense it was intended, and stop allowing unpatriotic and ignorant people of depriving us of our constitutional rights. George Washington said, ???A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government??? Gun Owners of America is doing much in fighting for our rights, consider supporting them until the NRA does a better job. Please request that gun lobbies endorse Ron Paul if they are honestly serious about protecting our freedoms.

Golly... I surley do hope the criminals obey at least this new gun law if it passes. Foolish politicians. Allowing law abiding people to carry there own hand guns will make criminals think twice and lower the crime rate dramatically. Any human with half a brain knows not to attack someone or something that could strike back with lethal force. Look at Floridas gun law. Crime rate adjusted itself pretty damn fast when more ppl were able to carry there firearms. Taking firearms out of law abiding citizens hands is not the answer. Besides I honestly dont think the criminal elements really care about this law. The less armed ppl to stop them from doing there crimes the better.

To bbnyls2go. You must really be in love with yourself and your opinions to have posted the same blog 5 times. Let me share a little story with you. In 1985 when I was living in Austin, TX a man cut the screen from one of my neighbors windows and crawled into her bedroom. Hearing him rifling through her stuff she decided to investigate. Upon reaching her bedroom she was set upon by the intruder and stabbed repeatedly. Hearing her screams, her roommate and her roommates boyfriend ran to assist her. The meth-head then turned his rage upon them stabbing bot several times as well as stabbing himself in the leg in his frenzy. The two roommates died and the boyfriend was critically injured and ennded up losing an eye. One reason why I don't go anywhere without my .357 magnum. I hope your ostrich head in the sand opinions don't see you and your family in a similar situation.

Statistics speak for themselves. In the late 1990's with the gun ban in effect, Washington D.C. had the highest muder rate in the world! 69.3 murders per 100,000 people. More than twice the second worst city which was Philadelphia at 27 per 100,00. people. Countries such as Switzerland, Fimland and Israel which have lenient gun ownership laws were among the safest. Hmmm?!!! Wake up people!

This is to bgphilippon; you???re a fool, I bet you have never read the constitution in its entirety, or any of the histories of the people who found, died and spent 10 years in a hot humid building designing a document not just for 1789 but a document to last centuries and to cover not just 13 little colonies but a who continent including South America and eventually the whole planet, thies guys were not stupid

You fools, read that document, and the corresponding letters of the people who wrote that document, IE Thomas Pain, and others, the second amendment CLEARLY states that it is the ???Individual Rights??? not a GOVERNMENT rights. The constitution is telling the GOVERNMENT ???you have this rights??? and cannot ???infringe??? on the people, the people ???grant??? rights to a government not the other way around, for every governmental institution since mankind has instutionalizes has always violated its own self, no matter how it was setup from the beginning. Ower Founding Fathers new this. Look up the ???definition??? of the term???Militia??? using a dictionary certa 1780, it DOES NOT SAY ???National Guard??? which is a Federalized unit. The second amendment gives ME the ability to say ???NO??? to the government

I guess what strikes this observer about this controversey is that it is largely a problem of semantic: for instance, I hear one writer blurting about the license that the term "arms," taken generally, would give the populace, without taking notice that arms of the time did not include thermonuclear devices, but only the implements of husbandry, since most of the people were farmers. These might be construed as schthes, sickles, axes, flails, and, presumably period firearms, to reduce the contact aspect of confrontations. Another writer talks about the meaning of "militia."The real meaning, THEN and NOW is of a martial body made up of citizen-soldiers, not professional ones.. With mass production of arms in its infancy, a militia was made up of people each owning their own arms, called together for the purpose of defense, and after the threat had passed, returning to their daily lives, in which firearms were a daily necessity. They were not like the National Guard of today, who turn in their gun for storage in an armory.. The right expressed in our Constitution is individual, not collective, and it has its basis in NATURAL LAW, which is seen in the entire scope of nature, in which each and every creature that lives on this earth, from the wasp and the tiny mouse up to man, has the right to repel perceived threat against its life. I reject the use of firearms for offensive use, just as I reject violence as the first means for solving any discord. But I reserve the right to own fiearms for my sport hobby and to defend my home. Why should the government be the one to tell me it is right to go out and take another's life for the spurious ideals of the military-industrial-intelligence complex?, and that its minions--the armed forces and police, etc.--should have the monopoly of violence against me, if I choose to dissent from their hollow ideals? No thank you. As someone once said, what if they gave a war and no one came? Ah, that would be the day! Change the mindset of troglodyte Pentagonistas, wipe the airwaves clean of violence, get rid of all the miserable trash on television, movies and books. Then maybe we could go back to a time when fiction reflected reality, instead of like today, when the opposite it true.

Quote; Liberals will read the constitution for what it "can say", Conservatives??? will read the constitution for what it "DOES SAY". Andrew Wilkow, Serous Radio 144

Quote; Liberals will read the constitution for what it "can say", Conservatives??? will read the constitution for what it "DOES SAY". Andrew Wilkow, Serous Radio 144

K-WHI13 - love the caps, dude.
Why, if they felt the need to specify the 1st, 4th, and 9th, as individual rights of 'the people' did they specifically FAIL to do so in the 2nd? Um, maybe because clearly it is NOT an individual right, maybe they wrote exactly what they meant, "the people" have a collective right to a "well formed militia" that has the right to bear arms.
Get over it, the states have the right to regulate law regarding private ownership of guns and the writers made that clear once you disregard those like yourself who wish to re-write and re-interpret what is simply stated already.

K-WHI13 - love the caps, dude.
If the writers bothered to specify individual rights in the 1st, 4th, and 9th, why do you think they failed to do so in the 2nd. Because it is NOT an individual right, it is a collective right of the citizens to arm a "well regulated militia". You want strict constuctionism, it doesn't get more simple than that.
How can finger be pointed at an administration full of gun owners (and a VP not afraid to use one, LOL!)

K-WHI13 - love the caps, dude.
If the writers bothered to specify individual rights in the 1st, 4th, and 9th, why do you think they failed to do so in the 2nd. Because it is NOT an individual right, it is a collective right of the citizens to arm a "well regulated militia". You want strict constuctionism, it doesn't get more simple than that.
How can finger be pointed at an administration full of gun owners (and a VP not afraid to use one, LOL!)

K-WHI13 - love the caps, dude.
If the writers bothered to specify individual rights in the 1st, 4th, and 9th, why do you think they failed to do so in the 2nd. Because it is NOT an individual right, it is a collective right of the citizens to arm a "well regulated militia". You want strict constuctionism, it doesn't get more simple than that.
How can finger be pointed at an administration full of gun owners (and a VP not afraid to use one, LOL!)