You’ll Smile When You Find Out How a Grandfather Stopped a Madman

15926777_sOne of the redeeming parts of reporting on the appropriate use of guns is every now and then you come across a gem of a story like this one.

In rural Portland, Tennessee a 52-year-old grandfather who did not want to be named, exercised his second amendment right in such a way that not even the most vicious of anti-gun advocates could come up with a means to vilify this good American.

The man, who works as a commercial truck driver, decided to use some of his much deserved vacation time sitting back and relaxing at his property out in the country.

As he kicked back and enjoyed himself, it wasn’t long before the man began to suspect something fishy might be going on. Doing a once over through his house he noticed that items in his home seemed suspiciously out of place, a tell-tale sign someone had been scoping out his home and possibly conducting illegal activities at his homestead.

That’s when he did the sensible thing any gun owner would do and he grabbed his pistol and kept it on himself for the remainder of his vacation.

It wasn’t long after he decided to carry around some extra protection that the man saw something he’ll never forget… a crazed man stumbled out of the weeds on his property and rapidly advanced towards him. His name? 27-year-old Richard Watkins.

In the anonymous man’s own words, “Some wild man comes out of the weeds towards me at the house. He comes walking over toward me I could tell he was messed up,”

One thing most gun owners know is that when approached by someone who appears to be under the influence of drugs it’s best to act in the defensive.

As the surprised trucker reacted to the situation, he had but one choice, prepare to defend himself or be attacked and possibly killed.

As he relayed to the local news station, “I don’t know really what to think and I don’t know really why he thought he had to talk to me but he had a pair of gloves of mine on. [So] I pulled my gun out and put it to his forehead and told him to sit down and called 911 and I’m thinking I don’t want to shoot this guy.”

Would you look at that, he didn’t want to shoot the guy.

How incredibly reasonable, and so incredibly hard to believe for our liberal friends who think every gun owner is a rabid trigger puller.

The man held Watkins at gunpoint until the authorities arrived. The police ended up finding a realistic looking pellet gun with a silencer in a pile of weeds nearby.

One thing you are probably concerned about (and rightfully so) is the amount of ammunition you have access to at any given time.

We’ve recently stumbled upon an incredible technique that gets you free of having to pay an arm and a leg for ammo. The details are contained inside of this special report. CLICK HERE.

  • b4k9zp

    Good for this guy! Had the man wearing gloves actually been carrying the pellet gun found in the weeds near the home, IMO the truck driver would have been justified in shooting him–for pellet guns can be as lethal as any firearm.

    • parlayer

      and look like one!

      • gary

        especially when pellets can be filled with ricen from the castor plant from castor beans ,yes pellets can be deadly

        • parlayer

          Police have shot people with “pellet guns” even with a red tip on the barrel although police have shot people with no nothing in their hands??

          • Frank

            police have shot people becasue they thought they were reaching for something. you dont have to have anything in your hands to get shot by a cop. turning down your headphones can get you shot, not dropping your cane can get you shot, picking up your pants to lay down on the ground can get you shot. basically cops shoot many people for a lot less than someone having a pellet gun, even with an orange tip.

          • parlayer

            I was neglegent in my discreption thank you for expounding on it.

          • ronald foster

            Do you think pulling out a credit card at at a gas pump to get gas or anyplace you are looking to purchase anything else can get you shot by a cop? All of what modern law enforcement gets away with these days makes you wonder.

          • OCDiver

            And you call US pigs!! you’re an ignoramus!

            When a person disobeys our orders, and resists arrest it puts their lives in danger, we will not let our guard down when people spit at our commands, we will defend ourselves, we are out here protecting you, your and everyone else and their families from harm and we just want to go home to our families when the shift is done, sadly some of us don’t get to because of the “rules of engagement” that we have to adhere to in an attempt to appease people like you.
            How dare you demonize the integrity of Police everywhere based on the over reactive nature of a few who should’ve never been sworn in? How would you like it if the Police Union decided to go on strike for a while in retaliation to your attitude and the attitude of others in your ilk? Can you imagine how chaotic things would get all across the nation if we did that? How safe would you be then?? Remember …. vigilantism is a crime too!! Yes you have the right to protect yourself, and how would you like it if you had to prove you were doing that the way we have to prove we were justified in our actions when things like Ferguson, MO happen?? Think before you speak, know all of the facts before you condemn (and don’t think for a second that the lamestream media is going to give you all of the facts either!! They are 90% of the problem with America today, there are very few true journalists in this country anymore).

          • b4k9zp

            when a police officer shoots an unarmed individual who is not threatening them, OC, that is first degree murder, in most peoples’ opionions. Just like the asphyxiation/suffocation/burning to death of the 76 Branch Davidians in Waco Texas on April 19,1993.

            The courts have held repeatedly that policemen are not legally required to provide protection to any individual at any given time. and with the kind of “protection” some police officers provide, it is no wonder many people no longer trust police officers. (That and the fact that some of those who present themselves as “police officers” are impersonators, who illegally wear the uniform.

            The existence of police unions is anathema, for the unions always ignore reality in their wage demands to enrich the fat cat union bosses and provide more money to Democratic party coffers.

            When is it vigilantism when the police refuse to do their job? Or when they violate the law in their mistaken zeal?

          • OCDiver

            If you don’t like how the Police operate in this country you’re free to leave for a country that you do agree with.
            The fire at Branch Devidian in Waco was not the responsibility of the FBI and only looney toon conspiracy theorists still carry that belief, the fire was started from within the structure and 4 brave men were killed before the FBI responded with like force. Again make sure you know all of the facts before opening your mouth. As for the rest of your statment …… whatever moron!!

          • worn out 123

            The ATF was involved there. I’m in favor of disbanding the ATF, anyway. It was a disaster in the making and shouldn’t have happened that way. A fatal mistake in judgement by the FBI, not police.

          • b4k9zp

            The FBI are FEDERAL police. So are the ATF agents. And the Texas Department of Public Safety had troopers present (though they did not participate in the siege or final murderous raid in which the 28 child and 48 adult

            Branch Davidians were suffocated and burned to death to “protect the children” as Janet Reno claimed.

          • b4k9zp

            Since all but six of the Davidians in the compound were knocked out by use of the tear gas before the fire started, and the six who were not knocked out had escaped and been taken into custody before the fire started, your comment is wrong. It was the CS tear gas grenades (which operate by an incendiary action) that were thrown into the compound by FBI and ATF agents that started the fires, as was clearly seen on IR sensitive video tapes taken of the incident at the time.

            This video was shown in the documentary “Rules of Engagement” which is still available for perusal by anyone. No conspiracy theory. Just facts.

            Your revisionist history leaves some gaps. The initial pre-dawn raid in February 1993 by the ATF agents occurred without warning (to the occupants of the Davidian compound) Videotapes of the raid were made by the local news station, and those tapes showed tracer fire going down INTO the compound from the ATF agents rappelling down from the helicopters into the compound for several seconds before any return fire from the ground was seen. Yes, three or four ATF agents were killed in that warrantless (no search warrant was ever served) pre-dawn raid with guns firing, and at least one Branch Davidian was killed.

            One fact you ignore was that when the six survivors of the fire in the compound were tried in state court for the murders of the ATF agents who died in the initial raid in February 1993, all six were found NOT GUILTY by unanimous vote of the jurors who sat on the trial jury.

            When the federal prosecutor ran his “railroad job” on those survivors in their trial for allegedly converting semi-automatic rifles into fully-automatic weapons, he refused to allow the defense to examine the alleged evidence, or to have a reputable third party (the same engineering firm that investigated the 1986 Challenger shuttle disaster) examine the rifles allegedly recovered from the compound by x-ray machines to see if any of the weapons had actually been converted. And the trial judge allowed him to do so, even though that was grounds for a mistrial.

            Diver, when you call another person a moron, you prove that you know you don’t have any facts of any kind whatever, or any possible form of logic or reasoning to support your own opinions. You commit a common logical fallacy called “ad hominem argumentum” where you call names instead of trying to refute the other’s statements with verifiable facts, logic and reasoning. In a formal debate, such practices would cause you to forfeit the debate.

          • worn out 123

            You’re a bit confusing. First, police were not in charge of the Waco disaster. I admit it was a disaster. Second, it was not intended to end with such loss of life on either side. So, don’t mix apples and oranges. The ATF was involved as was the FBI who were in charge. If anyone was to blame it was not the police. There is a difference, you know.

          • b4k9zp

            The FBI and ATF agents who were in charge at Waco were police officers. Not local police, but FEDERAL police officers. And there were Texas Department of Public Safety troopers in the area when the final assault was launched, as well as Army personnel from the nearby Fort Hood (in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act–the army personnel supplied the enormous quantities of CS tear gas the feds used to attempt to knock out the people in the compound).

          • b4k9zp

            Not confusing at all. Just stating the truth. The members of he FBI and the ATF are all law enforcement officers charged with enforcing federal laws (some of them unconstitutional). That means they were and are police officers. Not local or state police, but FEDERAL police.

          • worn out 123

            I read story after story of how the officer in Ferguson was not injured and/or the man had his hands up (surrendering) when he was shot. Later, it came out this officer had been attacked by the “gentle giant”, meaning a huge man. Still later I read the officer had suffered facial injury and his weapon was discharged during the attack. Finally, after weeks of listening to everything I could I understand the young man had a record, had just robbed a small business intimidating a small owner and attacked the officer and attempted to take his pistol(for what do u suppose? He just wanted to target practice?). How much warning can an officer, a wounded officer, give? The young man had been shot 4 times in his arm before his received a fatal head wound.
            Now, there are bad doctors, bad judges, bad nurses, bad teachers, bad everything, but, let’s give them all a fair trial.
            Conclusion: News media make the news, they don’t just report it and their news is generally bent to sensationalize. A Grand Jury and/or a trial seeks, at least it’s suppose to seek, truth. I don’t like our trials either, but, it’s the best we’ve got. Too many in MO. didn’t give the survivor of this event a fair chance, but, condemned him. I don’t have all the facts as of today, however, based on what I have read, I would rather be tried by 6 than carried by 6.

          • OCDiver

            Absolutely!!
            I’m 5’9″ 210 lbs. (I have no clue as to the Officers stats, they haven’t been reported) and if I’d just received a smack down and had to wrestle for my own weapon in my own squad car, and the perp that was 6′ 5″ 290+ lbs. came charging back at me (as reported by some) I wouldn’t have shown the restraint of putting 4 in his arm first … it would have been an immediate double tap!! plain pure and simple!!

          • worn out 123

            No sane person wants to kill. But, an old buddy of mine used to say u gotta do what u gotta do to survive. That’s the natural law. It appears to me the officer tried his best not to kill this young man. I’m not that good a shot. I could not justify waiting to fire to kill.
            I’d have no regrets if it happened as it seems to me. I’m sorry it happened. Have no way of knowing, but, I can only hope the officer is, too.

          • OCDiver

            Absolutely! And NO!! I wouldn’t “enjoy” killing either, but there is a responsibility to the community and my family for me to survive if push comes to shove!

          • worn out 123

            Never meant to infer you would, sir.
            You left one out. You owe it to yourself to survive. That’s natural law.

          • OCDiver

            I just didn’t want others reading to think I would, I honestly took no offense to your post, but thank you for the clarification. And like most of us on the force …. the community and our families come before us, I’m just so used to putting it that way I tend to forget to include myself. Thank you again for the recognition.

          • 5live5

            OC, to do anything less is foolish.

          • Mark Owen

            The fact of the matter is you will never see the rest of that thugs criminal record., Just by the size of him and his actions in the store prior to the shooting tells me he was used to intimidating any one who wasn’t big enough to stand up to him. Yeah right the officer sitting in the patrol car grabbed him by the collar and tried to hold on to him to arrest him. I’ve seen that movie too, it’s called FICTION backed by the lies of the perp who was with him! Let’s see you shoot straight with an eye socket all busted up.

          • 5live5

            now days the news stations don’t report the news, they “make” the news. If it isn’t sensational enough, they will make it so. If it takes “stretching the truth” or an outright lie, so be it!

          • ronald foster

            Firsr off my post did not make any pigs reference. Second off before I take your advice on think before I speak, I got a catchy but harsh rhyme for you. On your posr you mentioned officers that never should have been sworn in? Not never should have been sworn, never should have been born. In other words their mamas or papas should have ate the corrupt jive asses before they were born on this planet also I’m saying this so you’ll know. Next time my local Penrose Hospital sends a cop to my place for this safety check jive shit after I get released from ER, a camara to film and bust his/her ass, then have em go viral to the point of youtube. You too stay the hell away from me cop.

          • 5live5

            Ronald, just remember that can go another way as well. If OC happens to drive by and see someone with you at gunpoint, he can still “stay the hell away from you”.

          • ronald foster

            Also you mentioned disobeying an unlawful order from your superior(s) All can disobey the hospital request for a cop to go check on me after an E.R. incident whether that call is lawful or not because getting sick, injured and check in the ER is not a crime Mister. Also I mentioned on my last post about my home security cams. to bust cops at my door.Those are the only arms I pretty bear any more.

          • ronald foster

            One final thing, my home cam. enables me to view from far away from my place as well as there and a new years resolution I long made and held onto (very few I stick to but this resolution was special) when released from any ER, I dont return home on the spot I go off somewhere else like to a motel or a top secret vacant vacation home of my folks in Black Forest, Colorado to name a few so should you or any cop at my door want anyone to talk to at my home. If I’m away and you’re on candid camara, no one to talk to, threaten law enforcement action to except the Invisible Man shouting at you to get the fuck off my land. That’d me talking to you elsewhere. Also the security dispatchers watching you when I confirm to them you cant be on the propertyYou better then get the fuck away..

          • Stan Hoffman

            I’m not going to condemn nor uphold the police. But I will say that I live a clean moral life and the police do not bother me.

          • worn out 123

            Congratulations Stan. Wish I could say that. Police don’t bother me either. Oh, I got a ticket once for speeding and he thanked me for being so good natured.
            Condemning police is a bias. Police are kinda like government in general. I hate we have ’em and glad to have them, too.
            Looters: If I were to loot I would anticipate being shot.

          • Stan Hoffman

            I think we’ve all had a traffic violation at sometime in our life. None of us are perfect. However, I’ve learned that if I want trouble all I have to do is go where trouble resides. Leaned that by experience in my younger days. Good luck and hope things go good for you

          • Frank

            in my younger days i had a cop do an illegal search of my vehicle becasue i said “hey” to a class mate as i walked out of a store. because he was with his girlfriend and i said something that gave him reason to believe we were apart of a gang. this was a cop who drove around without his name tag, had his badge number covered and did not have plated on his squad car. he even had us all line up against the wall and called out the “gang task force” and had us all registered as gang members. all becasue i said hi to a classmate… and not that it matters, but the cop was black and my friend and his girlfriend were hispanic.

          • Stan Hoffman

            Frank, if the man had no name tag, his badge number was covered, and did not have a plate on his squad car, then he most likely was a man masquerading as a law officer. There have been plenty of incidents of people who wear police uniforms, use flashing lights, have fake badges, ect. As far as all police being good, I’m not foolish enough to say that. There is good and bad in all races and all professions. When an officer stops me, which as I’ve said, I have had traffic violations, I stay as humble as possible because I know I am at his mercy. I also know that they take a lot of verbal and physical abuse from criminals as well as the public. That’s why I remain humble and try to do only what the officer wants me to do. Saying or doing anything foolish will only escalate the situation. I’ve met a few stressed out officers, but the way I handled the situation kept it from getting worse. I’ve also met some very polite and professional officers. Comparing traffic violations, routine stops, ect, to people who are involved in criminal activity is like comparing night and day. Michael Brown and Myers had a history of criminal activity, and both had a history of handling situations in a bad manner. That’s what I’m trying to get people to understand. Those who live a criminal life will suffer the wrath of the police. Its the same as “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.” Its the same as “you reap what you sow.”

          • Frank

            wrong, he was a cop. he called for the gang task for and they came in another squad car. i asked them id this was right what they were doing and they ignored me. he was a very well known cop (a county sheriff) not in an unmarked car, in a full blown squad car with all the bells and whistles.
            he did not ask us a thing, he told us what we were doing and that we were in a gang and that he was going to find something as he went through my car. he never gave us a chance to say anything in defense or in protest. he patroled the area for a few years, everyone grew to know him and to know where he usually was so we could avoid him. it wasnt even a bad neighborhood.
            so no he was not a fake cop.

          • Frank

            put yourself in another situation i was in. i was on my way to drop of my girlfriend at her house when i get pulled over. i was not speeding, or breaking any other law. once pulled over without asking for my license or insurance he tells me to step out of the car which i do, he pats me down without reason, and asks if i have drugs or weapons in the car which i did not. then asks my girlfriend if she was there of her own free will which she gave a stunned look and says yes. he then takes me to my trunk and then asks for my license and my insurance which i already had in my hand. he runs my info and comes gives my license and insurance back and says have a nice day. never given a reason to why he pulled me over or anything. as soon as we get back on our way my girlfriend says “oh my god, i thought people lied about being pulled over for no reason” i tell her “now you know the truth”
            btw this was a different sheriff,

          • Stan Hoffman

            Frank, I was a truck driver for about 4 years. And I was pulled over a few times for routine inspections. No probable cause on my part. But I also was amazed at how much corruption there is in the trucking industry. And I can understand that that is why the law enforcement pull a lot of people over. This country has a massive crime, drug, alcohol, sex abuse, ect. problem. The worse our society becomes, the worse law enforcement will become. We are facing the probability of turning into Marshal law. Obama has already signed in the executive order giving him the power to use military force on our people. Do I want that? No. Is protesting going to stop it? No. Will electing new officials stop it? No. Our society is getting worse by the day. Evil will beget evil. And God will not stop it. Jesus said He did not come to save the world, but to call people out of the world. The world is mans choosing. Not God’s. Man is the cause of his own problems. Will bad things happen to those in Christ? You bet. I can attest to beatings and massive abuse by Americans who hate my Christian testimony. I had a man I didn’t even know hit me with a 2X4 and say “cuse, #%%#, cuse like a man, you know it hurts.” Well it did hurt, but I just looked at him and said, “What is wrong with you? Are you crazy?” I used to get upset over things like that, and I still don’t care for it. But I can’t change the world. All I can do is try and urge people to turn to Christ, and change from their wicked ways. That’s what I had to do.

          • Frank

            the first instance with the cop without a name tag was from 1993. this has been going on since before obama. sure obama has a lot to be blamed for, but this is a problem that has been around for more than 20 years and it has gradually gotten worse. i will not say that it’s all the individual cops fault, that would be naive. it has been a problem from the top that has trickled down to the street cop level. budgets are being cut, department spending being raked over by accountants. so they have to get extra money somehow, and that somehow is the public. some cops look for anything, and sometimes make up something to pull you over.
            me and a friend where going fishing about 150 miles away from homeat about 4 in the morning. i’m doing the speed limit with an empty road around me untill in the distance i see headlights in my rearview mirror. they get on me fast, i mean really fast. after a few seconds on him on my tail he hitsd his lights. i get my info ready hee asked for it and i give it to him. he did not say why he pulled me over or anything. when he comes back he hands me my info and gives me a ticket for no tail lights, stating that he almost hit me becasue he didnt see me. i signand as he says have a nice day i ask if i can get out and look, he scurries into his car and hits reverse and is out of there double quick. i look to see there was nothing wrong with my lights. this too was back in the mid 90s before even the speed trap towns had cameras. so there i am 100 miles away from home with a BS ticket to pay.
            i have nothing against anyone being a believer n their religion, but if more people realize the scams in which police departments and other agencies all the way to the federal level, the more people will come together and force our law makers to change those laws.

          • Stan Hoffman

            The police are not the only ones who have corruption problems. People have a corruption problem. So how are the corrupt going to change the corrupt?

          • Frank

            what wil you say next? we dont have a spending problem?

          • Debra

            good examples at the end of your post

          • 5live5

            Stan, they just arrested one of those guys the other day just outside Cleveland Ohio. He was, at one time, an unpaid volunteer cop in one of the little suburb towns.

          • Stan Hoffman

            5live5, I don’t know what your talking about.

          • 5live5

            Stan, read the first sentence of your post I answered to.

          • Stan Hoffman

            5live5, thanks, now I understand. Guy probably had an ego trip and wanted to be a police officer but couldn’t make it so he decided to be one on his own. Its not unusual.

          • 5live5

            Illusions of grandeur!!! Hope they throw the book at him. There was one a few years back that was stopping women and from what I read, molesting them.

          • Mark Owen

            Sounds like you are talking about the Ferguson shooting, that thug got what he had coming to him nothing more!

          • Average Joe American

            No, that would be the recent Walmart shooting. The victim was on his cellphone, reportedly leaning on a BB or pellet gun he had not yet purchased, not facing the police or even aware they were there. They shot him dead. Or it might be the more recent one in Texas, where a wino was sitting on a couch in a guarded or gated area with a pellet pistol exposed. TX is not an open carry state. When the cops arrived the gate guard (again reportedly) informed them the man had a “pellet pistol.” He has publicly stated this: the cops were informed the man did not have a firearm. Exposure of a firearm even by a license holder of a concealed carry permit is a misdemeanor. A fleet of police cars arrived and they shot him to death…with 80 rounds, including some from semi-auto rifles (the family later said they had to give him a closed casket funeral because he had no face left). Then two of the shooters gave one another a victory fist-bump. They were restricted to paid administrative duties (until an internal investigation can absolve them of any actionable breach of code…or maybe they’ll actually get fired for wasting department ammo and horsing around on the job).
            As for Ferguson, I would tend to agree the guy was a thoroughly dangerous thug and his witness partner was a lying weasel. The video I saw of the subsequent shooting of an unarmed man several days later, however…

          • b4k9zp

            Yes, that “Wal-Mart customer” had been seen pointing the pellet gun at several children in the store before the police showed up. IIRC, the news reports said that when shot, he was still threatening the children with the gun.

            I live in Texas, and never heard of any such incident as the one you describe. In what city, and when, did this alleged incident occur?

          • Average Joe American

            I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. Texas is a very large state, I realize, but I didn’t have to move there to do a simple AOL search on “texas pellet gun police shooting” and get 187,000 hits. Victim’s name was Jose Walter Garza. It happened in Laredo in September, people in San Antonio, NY, and London read all about it. As for the Ohio Walmart guy, actually it was a pump .177 caliber BB/pellet gun from the toy section. I don’t know what all was reported by the MSM or what the cops reported (I’ve read that the witness changed his story from the original), I just saw the video of the shooting. What I saw was not a confrontation, it looked like murder. It did not look to me as though the victim was aware of the cops until too late, and he was not pointing the toy gun when fired upon. There was also the case of the Santa Rosa CA 13-year-old gunned down (seven shots) by police, also carrying a BB or pellet gun. I’m not going to do research for anyone who can’t do a simple Google or Ask.com search and find any of these unwarranted killings by police, but the way it works is, you type a few key words into the displayed search box and hit enter. If nothing comes up, try again with different search criteria.
            The point here is that there seems to be a serious increase in reported police shootings (and tasings and beatings, no-knock SWAT home invasions [like the one where they threw a flash grenade into a baby’s crib blowing a hole in his chest and disfiguring him for life], and unwarranted stops, searches, and seizures). And yes, the victims seem predominantly to be non-white.

          • 5live5

            Walmart doesn’t display their air guns in the toy section. They’re in the sporting goods section. They are not “toys”. I have hunted squirrel with a break barrel .177 pellet rifle that has a muzzle velocity of 1200 FPS. One shot, one squirrel. I have also killed raccoon with it. A single shot to the head.

          • Karen Lee King

            They are also in plastic packaging. I go to Walmart almost on a weekly basis and have never seen a pellet rifle or pistol in the toy department. They are always in the Sports department and always in some sort of packaging.

          • 5live5

            Yup.

          • Joe Mertens

            Hey was killed in the toy department it does not mean the bb gun was picked up there Good Grief!

          • b4k9zp

            Don’t have AOL, since AOL is anti-gun. Use Bing and Google, and looked up the same thing you said you searched in AOL, and got zero hits. A pump action pellet gun is as lethal as a .22 at close range. The man had been seen pointing the weapon at a couple of kids minutes previously. You saw an edited version of the shooting.

          • Average Joe American

            To 5live5, Karen, and b4k0zp:

            I’m aware of how most Walmart stores are set up, and that many news outlets get their info wrong or are biased. But whether the BB/pellet gun was in the toy section or the sporting goods section, wrapped or unwrapped when Crawford picked it up and began wandering around the store while chatting on the phone with his girlfriend/common-law-wife, the video footage shows the police acted precipitously, and killing an innocent man. Based on nothing more than a dispatcher’s call, based on a dubious 911 call, from a shopper named Ritchie, who later changed his story.
            Crawford was not loading and waving a rifle around in the local Walmart, as Richie originally claimed, the extended footage shows unfazed shoppers, then cops armed with what appear to be ARs or M16s charging into the foyer, and then shooting down Crawford at the end of a Walmart aisle, giving him no time put down either his phone or the gun.

            5live5: I’ve used and owned BB/pellet pump guns, and yes they can be lethal to rodents and birds (not as likely to kill as a .22 because fewer fps, less projectile mass); i.e., while I’ve carried a .22 firearm for personal protection, I would never carry an air pump .177 for such a purpose unless hoping to knock down a human with a wildly freak shot.

            As for not using AOL for a search (because “it’s anti-gun”), I don’t follow you b4k9zp. AOL uses the Google search engine, as does Bing. Google gives me 186,000 hits on “texas pellet gun police shooting,” and “124,000” hits on “ohio pellet gun police shooting.” The first hits in the line-up are the Laredo and Walmart police shooting events.

            So I reiterate: The point here is that there seems to be a serious increase in reported police shootings (and tasings and beatings, no-knock SWAT home invasions [like the one where they threw a flash grenade into a baby’s crib blowing a hole in his chest and disfiguring him for life], and unwarranted stops, searches, and seizures). And yes, the victims seem predominantly to be non-white.

          • Karen Lee King

            So the caller said then he changed his story stating that the customer didn’t point the gun at anybody. Can’t shoot someone with the gun still in the packaging.

          • worn out 123

            Ferguson: I’m uncertain just how dangerous he really was, but, no reasonable person can question that he made bad decisions which gave him the appearance of being extremely dangerous and unpredictable.

          • 5live5

            Uncertain of how dangerous he was? The cop had an orbital fracture of his eye socket. THAT’S how dangerous he was!

          • worn out 123

            Heard that once. News is kinda scattered and incomplete from one broadcast to another and one network to another. I don’t claim to have had all the information.
            Grand Jury SHOULD get enough. Assuming you are correct, and I believe you are, this may well not go to trial, however, if I were this officer I would request a transfer or letter of recommendation to work elsewhere. I doubt he or his family is safe in Ferguson any longer.
            With very few exceptions, when a life is taken it is nothing to be joyful about, however, the reaction of the Ferguson residents is shameful. Racism is ugly.

          • 5live5

            Yes it is.
            I feel so torn by all this news lately as my life was saved by a Black who fought against another to help me. We were very good friends and the other guy had cut my wrist with a broken bottle. He beat the hell out of the guy. I would have had another cut on my throat if not for him.

          • worn out 123

            “If you want to know who you are, act! Don’t think. You are delineated and defined by your actions.” . . . .T. Jefferson

          • wandrako

            If you are talking about the 18 yr old that fired three shots at the policeman he was not unarmed. They found a gun on him altho all the so-called “witnesses” claimed he was unarmed just like the Ferguson guy had his hands in the air. Liars all the way.

          • Frank

            if all is ferguson out of this, please turn off your tv and start looking up what the cops are really doing around this country. a cop shoots a dog every 90 seconds in this country, yet they give a “K-9” unit dog a full service?
            cops and their departments are out of control. they are being militarized, for what? just who do you think they are calling the enemy? any and all citizens of these United States of America.
            just to give you a little more of something to look up, google “civil forfeiture abuse” and tell me what that sounds like.

          • Marlin Covert

            When these animals that riot and steal stop their lawlessness, maybe we can get back to where we once was. Until the they need to shoot rioters on sight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Frank

            when did i even talk about rioters? they are shooting everyday people on sight and saying they feared for there life. the only time it makes the news is when its whitye on black. but guess what, you dont ever hear about the other cops shooting poeple that are not black. is it because it doesnt happen? WRONG, its because it is not being reported, but it happens everyday

          • OCDiver

            Quit lumping all Police in with a few bad apples. You need to do our job for a couple of months to really see and feel what we have to deal with.

            – DPSST 40274 …. my Badge Number!!
            yes, I use an alias in these chat rooms to protect my family!!

          • worn out 123

            Two sides to every story, and the truth is the third story. Each encounter is different just as I imagine each officer to be different. That’s precisely why I object strenuously to the Patriot Act. No U.S. citizen should ever be “detained” without charges or trial. The “Unpatriotic Act”. What could our congress have been thinking??????

          • b4k9zp

            The Patriot Act is only the tip of the iceberg. Even worse is the amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that essentially nullifies the Sixth Amendment’s protection against being incarcerated for long periods of time without being informed of the nature of the charges against you, and without being allowed representation by an attorney; and eliminates the requirement for a speedy trial in the jurisdiction in which the alleged crime occurred. Both the Patriot Act and the amendment to the Defense Authorization Act are completely unconstituitonal on their face, and should be unenforceable.

          • worn out 123

            OMG! b4k9zp, You and I agree totally on something. I believe in miracles again. THANK YOU, Jesus!

          • WhiteFalcon

            I wish the Supreme Court would declare the Patriot Act to be unconsitiutioal because it is.

          • worn out 123

            And the fed., and the BLM and Harry Reid.
            Just kidding about Reid.

          • 5live5

            Reid should just be put out to pasture in a 6×6 cell with good solid bars!!

          • worn out 123

            I wish they had outlawed political contributions over $5,000.

          • 5live5

            FOR ALL SIDES!

          • worn out 123

            Naturally. I want more than one political party. In fact, I’d like three or four parties with equal speaking time on the airwaves.

          • b4k9zp

            Political contributions by unions and corporations directly to any political candidate are still illegal.

            Political contributions to groups whose business is to inform the public of things like a candidates voting record (if he is an incumbent running for re-election) or about his public stances on issues important to the election process, are legal, and cannot be limited under the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment, and neither can expenditures by those groups on behalf of a candidate, for that is a violation of their freedom of speech.

          • worn out 123

            That may well be the law, but, the reality is quite different. People the world over work for who pays them. When individuals and/or groups contribute millions to a PAC they have bought that person. That’s why working Americans have no representation in congress or the W.H.

          • OCDiver

            They were clearly in “panic mode” and NOT thinking, but until “We the People” can get it repealed like Prohibition was, we’ll just have to deal with it the best we can ….. with PEACEFUL assembly in protest. Not like the radical hippies of the 60’s and even in a lot of cases today. And it’s the ‘prolonged’ detention that I disagree with, 24 hours should be plenty of time to question a suspect (unless the suspect “lawyers up”, then it’s up to the lawyer how long we can interview a suspect). After 24 hours then by law we are required to either charge or release.

          • worn out 123

            The only politician I hear expressing these sentiments is Rand Paul. IStandWithRand

          • OCDiver

            There are some things that I can agree with Sen. Paul on, but there is something in his eyes and voice I can’t put my finger on, so I just can’t fully support him.

          • worn out 123

            I just vote my conscience, and think everyone should.

          • OCDiver

            If he is the candidate he will get my vote because as you pointed out not voting is a vote for the other side. But until he is the candidate, I can’t fully support him.

          • Debra

            Don;t get me started on those damn hippies! I hated them in the 60’s. They completely had no sense and couldn’t function! They are the ones that started these lies against police. They were who i was referring to in my earlier post, but i didn’t say hippies because i thought that might be before your time and you wouldn’t get the connection. But i see we’re on the same page.

          • OCDiver

            😉 yup!!
            I was young, but I do remember them vaguely. I mostly remember them through my High School History classes though.

          • Debra

            You mean those low life sorry dope smoking, waste were put in the history books!!! I bet they were proud of that. I’m glad you didn’t have to experience them back then, but you are now. That’s what wrong with our country now. Most of them are in our government today. They decided that would be the perfect way to make things their way. Get the background on most of your Senators and Congressmen and women. Go way back on them. When they couldn;t get their way back then by doing their sit in;s and change how this country was run, they decided to take office and change things their self. Most of them come from wealthy parents that paid for their education and gave them money back when they lived in our parks and openly did there drugs, etc. Hung out on our streets, lived 50 or so in one house, lived in tents, etc. Just nasty. Protested Vietnam War. They were draft dodgers, like our ex-president Clinton. He hide in Canada. My husband was drafted and did 2 tours in Vietnam. Came home and they cursed them and called them baby killers. It was the Vietnamise that straped explosives to their small children and sent them into a group of soldiers to explode and kill the soldiers. Glad you weren’t in that era. I stayed as far away from them as i could. But do check out anyone you’re going to vote into office and find out who they really are before you vote for them. And thank you for being an officer and caring about people. May God Bless you and keep you safe and your family too.

          • 5live5

            Try being a returning Vietnam vet with those crappers!

          • Debra

            Don’t know if you were drafted or enlisted but thank you for your service to our country. My husband spent 2 tours in Vietnam. He came home in Jan 1971. He was proud to serve our country. He stayed away from the hippies too. To us they were walking brain dead humans. They didn’t make any sense.They were lazy, wouldn’t work, draft dodgers. Then they wanted to treat you guys like dirt for serving your country. My husband paid them no attention. Thankfully they started fading out cause they weren’t getting anywhere with their messages. Nobody paid them any attention. but they sat out to get things changed to their way by going into government their selves. That’s what’s in our government offices now in Washington.Not all of them, but quiet a few of them. Like i was telling ‘OCDiver’ the hippies came from wealthy families and they cleaned up and got some college education, and toned down some and ran for office so they could change things from inside.Check out some of them. Go way back into their background and you’ll find out who they are. They are still up there. They should be made to retire. They still don’t make any more sense now than they did in the 60’s and early 70’s. God Bless You and your family and again Thank You for your service.

          • WhiteFalcon

            I agree with both of your statements above. I have had several friends that were police and htey have all been great guys. Some of the police are “bad apples” but that happens in every group. However I have to wonder, what woud you do if you were given the order to confiscate arms from the people? Clearly that would be unconstitutional and therefore an illegal order, so what would you honeatly do?

          • OCDiver

            In all honesty I’ve sworn an oath to uphold the law and protect the people (paraphrasing of course) not obey unlawful orders from my superiors. If an order like that came down, I would tell my commander to get stuffed. The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America “shall not be infringed upon”, and if I get fired for disobeying an order then so be it. That’s where the Union attorneys come in very useful.

          • WhiteFalcon

            What do you think others around you would do? I have asked that question several times to not only police but to National Guard people and I get similar answers, but I know that people will often times obey orders from their superiors even when it goes against their beliefs, and it really concerns me. I also wonder what I would do in that event and what would be the correct thing to do.

          • OCDiver

            I can’t speak for the others around me, but I would hope that they would stand with me against our superiors trying to issue such a blatantly unlawful order.

          • WhiteFalcon

            Ano I am 100% with you on that. I would far rather be fighting with the police rather than against them if it ever came to such a senerio. The same is true with the National Guard. Unfortunately I have a great mistrust with this Government. It was just the opposite when I was a kid and I wish it was still like it was then, but it isn’t. I will say to you, do your job well and properly and we the people will be with you. You have a tough job and those of us with brains know that.

          • OCDiver

            Thank you

          • Debra

            Indeed

          • 5live5

            check out OHbummers order that illegals be allowed into the service yet he’s making a lot of other soldiers from field grade officers on down ETS! Americans might not fire on Americans, but illegals might very well do just THAT!

          • olf

            Thank you for your service. I’m aware of what you must go through on a daily bases. I hear people bad mouthing police and think how stupid can you be. Most of the guys I have met are just trying to do a good job and make a living. I’ve seen some whiper snappers, but I’m sure they are guided and watched in training beyond the school. We must be partners against crime not enemies. Thank you and God Bless and keep you safe.

          • OCDiver

            Thank you

          • Debra

            I agree.

          • Vernon Cunningham

            OCDriver, I am happy to see your response. I think most policemen will do the same. I lawfully own weapons. I sport shoot, and I collect old war weapons, all of which are operational. ,I have no intention of ever breaking the law, and also know that if illegal confiscation were ordered, I would stand my ground based on my rights. I would hate to have to shoot at a man just following orders even if those orders were less than lawful.

          • OCDiver

            Sadly I have to say, if an Officer is executing (or legally speaking … attempting to execute) an unlawful order, then said Officer deserves to be fired upon. There really is no excuse for violating our Constitutional freedoms. Even if it cost me my badge and livelihood, I will defend the Constitution over illegal orders from a superior.

          • Average Joe American

            Because you’ve posted your badge number I won’t make a big deal out of it or hold you to it (you could be a KUPBee [kid up past bedtime] for all we know), but you sound like an Oath Keeper. Which in my considered opinion is an excellent thing. One of our nation’s few last hopes, whether you’ve signed up or not. Although the verbiage may seem archaic to legal beagles who seem to enjoy arguing over the punctuation, the principles Constitution remain unchanged.
            In the vernacular: You don’t fuck with the Constitution…without becoming ipso facto and enemy of the state. Our forebears called that Treason.

          • Debra

            Amen. Thank you

          • Frank

            just like not all people are bad, they usually are treated the same as criminals. the police mentality has changed over the past 20 years. it has become more military based rather than police based.

            police are here to protect and serve the community, but not the individual.
            ‘According to the US Supreme Court decision in Warren v. District of Columbia in 1981, the police do not have the duty to provide protection and services to individuals except under specific assignments.’
            OCdiver, has your department ever used civil forfeiture? and can you as a law enforcement officer explain what civil forfeiture is and how someone can get their money back?

          • OCDiver

            Not in the context to with which you’re implying. civil forfeiture laws exist to aid in restitution for the crimes committed against communities (i.e. drug dealers properties are seized and auctioned off to pay for the prosecution of the perpetrator), after a conviction. If the conviction is overturned, then yes the person is reimbursed for their losses. The individual is protected by the constitution and bill of rights (due process et al). And no, for the most part Police mentality has not “changed” only the peoples “perception” of Police mentality (there will always be the bad apple that spoils the barrel). Police now wear military grade PPE (personal protection equipment) and carry military style weapons, because of the new technological advances in the threats that we face (criminals have them so we need them to protect the community and ourselves).

          • Frank

            you are wrong, there does not have to be a conviction for civil forfeiture. it is a case of you have to prove that the money or property is not being used for criminal purposes in order for you to get it back.

            “In general, you needn’t be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with “probable cause” is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner’s guilt or innocence”

            http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken

            Many of the abuses occur at the state and local levels, but the federal government encourages them through “equitable-sharing partnerships,” a practice that allows police agencies to circumvent state laws that might otherwise tie their hands. Nebraska has some of the strongest anti-forfeiture laws in the country, but in 2003, the local police used equitable sharing to work with federal officials to seize $124,700 in cash from Emiliano Gonzolez under the federal government’s lesser legal standard of proof. Gonzolez was never charged with a crime, but he lost his cash, which he had intended to use to buy a refrigerated truck for a produce business.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-to-the-abuse-of-civil-forfeiture/2014/09/04/e7b9d07a-3395-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html

            Under the surreal doctrine of civil forfeiture, law enforcement agents can set aside constitutional protections and simply seize property under the assertion that the property is probably related to some kind of criminal activity. This is often an irresistible temptation, and the state gets away with it by laying charges against inanimate objects, which have no rights, instead of people, who do. This reverses the presumption of innocence, allowing money, cars, and even the occasional motel to become the constable’s property without a judge finding the actual owner guilty of anything. It’s up to the owner to prove the cops wrong, and if there’s any doubt, the government wins. The system is rigged to favor those who are corrupt.

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/16/editorial-the-cops-get-the-ticket/#!

            Earlier this year, Yianni Sourovelis, 22, was arrested for possessing $40 worth of heroin, his first criminal offense. Several weeks later, police and representatives of the district attorney’s office showed up at Sourovelis’ parents’ house in the Philadelphia suburbs and told them they were being evicted.

            According to Markella Sourovelis, Yianni’s mother, the officers who arrived began screwing doors shut, shutting off electricity, and telling the family their home would be gutted after it was seized by the state. The elder Sourovelises had committed no crimes, but were victims of Pennsylvania’s civil forfeiture law, which allowed the city district attorney to take custody of the home just because it believed it was being used to sell drugs, without a trial or other proof of wrongdoing. It is worth repeating, perhaps, that this was Yianni’s first offense.

            Read more: http://www.mommyish.com/2014/09/06/childs-minor-drug-offense-could-cost-you-your-home/#ixzz3G78a9pNh

            i’m not saying that you are one of the bad cops out there, it sounds like you are one of the good guys and i do thank you for your service. what you do is not ment for everyone and it does take a special kind of person to do what you do. but with that said there are enough bad cops to out there and bad department that produce bad cops that puts a shadow of doubt on all cops. ans there are enough bad laws out there that allow some departments to act in was only thought of in other countries.

          • OCDiver

            Frank
            You specifically asked about MY Dept. and as an Officer to explain the civil forfeiture laws, and then have the gall to come back telling me that I’m “wrong”? And then site 4 clearly liberally biased articles, hell bent on discrediting Police agencies across America? I appreciate your vote of confidence in your last paragraph, but you really need to go to your County Courthouse (or where ever your local “Law Library” is) and look up the differences and similarities between the two forfeiture laws for yourself instead of relying on those liberal media outlet articles, and see for yourself the intent of the two laws. You’ll see how similar they really are and where the burden of proof lies. It’s the Prosecutor’s burden, not the individual’s. And yes there are some “dirty” prosecutors that bend (even break) the law to fit their needs (points of view) too.

          • Debra

            You are correct. Police have not changed. It’s people that don’t and never have liked the police that bad mouth them all the time. And 98% of what they say is a lie on purpose, to try to make people hate police. It’s their goal in life. And they are the law-breaking people their selves. It’s because they hate police because it henders them from all the bad things they want to do and get away with.

          • 5live5

            OCDiver, unfortunately there have been reports of weapons being confiscated and when the person is cleared of charges they sometimes don’t get their weapons back. These are things committed by the government that unfortunately make good police like yourself look bad.

          • Average Joe American

            I know from personal experience that you are correct 5live5. Even in court they look bad. And I know because I’ve been there: the judges look the other way even when the cops lie and are caught on the stand and everyone in the room knows it, even when they clearly and obviously lie, contradict, and perjure themselves on the stand. It’s not TV, in reality the judge appears not to notice.
            It’s allowed, because they are the police. You’re not. Forget the law, forget your rights. They can lie to a judge’s face when it’s clear even the judge knows it, and you’ll get convicted on the cop’s testimony, not the bald-faced facts of the case, nor the bald-faced lies told in court by the police which are evident to all.
            And heck, I lost a perfectly good $350 Chief’s Special over that one, it was an election year, and the local candidate was running on an anti-gun ticket. The fact that I was fully permitted, licensed, and legal had not a thing to do with it. Some idiot saw my gun in the Men’s room while I was peeing, and told the management, who called the police. You can imagine the rest.
            It cost me a LOT (my contract security business, in fact), and of course, my gun. That was over 25 years ago, today I’d probably have been shot. “Legally” for legally carrying a weapon someone called in on 911, from a Men’s room sighting. Things have gotten more insane, apparently.

          • Oldvet

            Amen let them make split second decisions involving life or death, and deal with people usually at they’re worst.

          • Debra

            Yes sir, i agree with you that they should ride along with you for a day. I know for a fact, it would change their opinion of officers. People just have no idea what ya have to encounter. God Bless and be safe.

          • OCDiver

            Thank you

          • 5live5

            I never do that. There are still good cops out there. Take for instance the “oath keepers”. We had a guy just last week that was going around breaking into peoples houses and garages, even confronted a couple of women. I watched the cops take him down and I applaud them for a job well done!

          • Average Joe American

            OCDiver, I empathize, but here are my reservations:
            When “your” people all wear the same uniforms, or
            When “you” don’t wear a uniform but act under the same authority, or
            When you” keep using the phrase “a few bad apples” while looking the other way as your fellow police officers do the unspeakable (including but not limited to rape, theft, torture, and murder), and
            When far too much reportage already exists, even in the MSM and going back decades, regarding major police malfeasance, major racial and social-strata prejudice, willing compliance with political machinery, and fundamental armed brutality, and
            You clearly don’t seem to get the difference between a quickie “chat room” response and a long-lived comment on a major blog site (or you belittle the importance of those who respond here by implying they are merely chat-roomers), then
            It’s harder to take you and your function in society as seriously as you apparently take it and yourself. By your very function you now lose the respect which you and your job requires within the community. The drugs which our misguided laws forbid may corrupt those who use them, but our unconstitutional “laws” corrupt our police and government even more.
            It’s fairly evident we’re not talking about “a few bad apples.” What folks are talking about now is a problem which has been endemic for many decades, has it’s origins in the so-called (now failed) War on Drugs and which has resulted in the massive militarization of local police forces all over our nation, designed to bully, incarcerate, or kill more US citizens per capita than any other country on the planet.
            Those are my reservations. I am not alone in these observations. More and more citizens are expressing concern about guys with assault weapons charging around their local stores and malls, guarding their streets with MRAPs and wearing cammies, gunning down innocent victims as though playing a video game wired on Jolt and Cheetos. Main Street is not Beirut. It’s our home, not some video game.

          • b4k9zp

            When dogs are running around loose, they gather in packs, like the wolves from whom they are descended. And in packs, they are more aggressive than they are when alone, usually. (Like mobs of people). Dogs should always be kept on a leash in public, and if they aren’t they can be (and IMO should be shot)

          • Frank

            what about the ones in their own backyards? just read my post above.

          • b4k9zp

            What were the dogs doing when they were shot? Were they minding their own business, or did they attack the police officer?

          • 5live5

            I’m just as sick and tired of people that have cats and allow them to roam. I’ve had a cat for 8 years now and it’s never been on anybody else’s property. My neighbors cat has torn out my door screen twice now trying to get to my cat. I’m about to trap it and turn it over to the dog warden and if he won’t take it the cat rescue. I don’t want to kill it, just stop it from destroying my property!

          • olf

            Obarry and his dogs have put the country in a very bad place, and it’s going to get ugly trying to undo the lies and damage he has caused. Lord God help with and through the truth, we have evil in our government.

          • worn out 123

            You make some good points. Let’s see now, there are millions of stray dogs in America, some of which have been made mean by mean people. A stray dog got under my fence and gave my pooch a hard time. Nearly shot him myself. Good thing somebody’s keeping the population down. “K-9” dogs have save many people, including police, from being harmed by criminals. And this is the reason police are out of control? Maybe police in San Francisco are momentarily out of control. I might be too if I lived in Xanadu.
            Civil forfeiture is something else again. I do agree you have something there. Next time I visit my sister I’ll be sure not to carry $10,000 in cash.

          • Frank

            no this is why they are out of control.

            “Imagine the despair you would feel if you came home to find your beloved pet dead, with multiple gunshot wounds. That’s exactly what happened to this man, who says a Salt Lake City police officer broke into his home and killed his dog.”

            http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/151451-watch-man-confront-police-officer-shot-dog/

            Cop Shoots Dog in Throat, Threatens Owner With Arrest If He Tries to Help Wounded Canine

            “A rash of animal shootings by police officers nationwide has law-enforcement agencies running for cover amid growing public outrage that could force state legislatures to require greater accountability from men and women in uniform.”

            “police across the country are trending toward less tolerance and less respect for people’s pets, which he sees as part of a larger trend toward more aggressive policing tactics in America.”

            http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/police-take-horrific-action-every-98-minutes/#A0YwlspQgzWlpjcw.99
            keep your head in the sand thinking the cops only shoot strays

          • worn out 123

            Thanks for the info. Mormons control that state. It’s on them, I suppose. I’ve never lived anywhere where such a thing would occur. I can say with resolve if my pooch is shot that will not be the end of it by any means.
            The many police I have seen and the few I have known are not the friendliest people, nor are many qualified brain surgeons/rocket scientists. Many have brutal streaks in their personality, many others do not, but all are prepared to defend themselves and most want to defend the public. I like to call it the survival/hero instinct. I have had it myself; the strong desire to survive as well as a slightly weaker, still strong desire to defend the defenseless. I once watched a man open the back door on a raging auto fire to see if anyone was in the back seat. A mere few seconds later the car exploded. Why did he risk his life? I found out he was a part time deputy sheriff.
            I’m glad you point out the bad ones. We all need to work on stopping the abuses. I just don’t want to paint them all with the same brush. Thanks for reading and continue pointing to the abuses, Frank. I’ll be looking forward to reading more as soon as I get my head of this bucket of sand.

          • b4k9zp

            When the dogs attack them, they often have no choice.

          • worn out 123

            I tend to agree. Here’s the sorry part. He was 18 years old, did not come from a bad background, and did not have a long record of drugs and/or brutality. What a terrible waste!
            There is something missing in these discussions of what led to this day. There are some very disturbing social aberrations that need be brought to light in the Ferguson community; in every community.

        • b4k9zp

          Even without any additives, a pellet is the same size, generally, as a .22 LR bullet, and can be propelled by a pellet gun at .22 LR speeds (1100-1400 fps), depending on the make and model of the pellet gun. They are also, like .22 LR bullets, generally made of lead, which is toxic.

          • OCDiver

            Wrong again pinhead, bb’s are copper and pellets are zinc not lead get your facts straight.

          • b4k9zp

            every pellet I’ve ever fired was lead, and the packages in which they came stated they were made from lead. Zinc is too hard to use as a pellet, for it wears out a steel barrel quite quickly. (That and the fact that it has a density of about 7.35 g/cubic centimeter versus lead’s 11.36 g/cubic centimeter makes lead the better choice)

            When you insult another person by calling them names, you prove only that you know you don’t have any facts whatsoever, or any conceivable form of logic or reasoning to support your own opinions. Such ad hominem arguments mean you know you lost the argument.

          • 5live5

            OC, I use Pellets all the time, both .177 and .22 both are lead unless you get the new high velocity rounds which are made from an alloy to make them lighter and achieve higher velocity.

      • Karen Lee King

        They ARE making them look more realistic than ever, huh?

        • parlayer

          just like a toy corvette, except full scale model. Exact Replica, I do think that a cop would be justified if it was pointed at him if suspect did not drop it when ordered if that happens. Act stupid you get what you get and I’m no Police supporter as they have lied on the stand in a traffic case I took to court. ??? Although I do see a need for police. Kind of like a Janitor, show up to clean up the mess. Protect yourself as they can’t and won’t. then they’ll probably lie in court about the case.

          • Karen Lee King

            One thing I can say is that I love the City of Salem, Virginia police. They are very nice. I have even gotten weird looks because of them joking around with my husband and me giving them hugs. They have even joked around with me about the vehicles they drive on the force. God Bless the Salem Police!

          • parlayer

            I don’t consider this a “Ou contrair” on my post, “There’s always going to be corruption” EVERYWHERE.

          • Karen Lee King

            I have lived here all my life and haven’t seen it.

          • parlayer

            ??Lucky or Blind. “If you like your health care” Etc.

    • Combatvet52

      I have a pellet revolver looks and feels just like my 357 Colt Phyton only it’s a lot lighter in weight,
      He would have been justified in shooting this dirt bag, but most honest law abiding gun owners don’t want to kill unless it’s absolutely necessary then it’s split decision time.

    • 7papa7

      If it were me I would have probably shot him. It is to dangerous to let him so close that he was able to put his gun to his forehead. You are definitely putting yourself at risk especially with a junkie that is high.

    • Twisted Psyche

      I stand. I bow. I drop to my knees. I bow again. This man deserves the honor of self-restraint that I may never have. Were I in his situation, I believe I would have SHOT the intruder in SPITE of my advantage. I tend to become possessed by uncontrollable anger when someone invades what should be my defenseable space. Were I in the space of this man, the offender may have been stripped of his face by gunfire. This man has INCREDIBLE Self-Control!

      Knowing my tendencies, I truly do have a need to contact him so that I may develop the control necessary to defy my urge to kill offensive intruders.

  • Papa Ritz

    Good move on owner’s part.

    • gary

      not smart imo mr Watkins might not have recognized the danger he put himself in and attacked

  • verneoz

    Are you feelin’ lucky, punk?

  • parlayer

    Should have shot him, there will be a next time! somewhere else same guy diff. location.

  • Ibcamn

    ahahahahaha,..awesome!

  • 5live5

    Now if we could just get the mainstream media to report these happenings. They happen all the time where a gun PROTECTS the life of an innocent person. It doesn’t fit their “agenda” though!

    • tinkerunique

      A citizen protecting his family or property can not be sensationalized, like a thug robbing somebody else. In some cities, the daily shootings in gang areas get little notice. Black thugs beating up a bunch of white folks gets a light blip on the news, but when a white person kills a black crook, it gets promoted for weeks.

      • 5live5

        I don’t want it sensationalized. I want it REPORTED! I want to see equal time and space for the reporting of important NEWS! The Fact that a man had to act to protect his family is just as newsworthy as a White person shooting a Black! Perhaps if the normal people knew the truth about how many people use guns DAILY to save lives, they might not be so anti-gun! The problem is, this doesn’t fit their AGENDA!!!

        • tinkerunique

          Want facts = online – check FBI facts on different types of crime, and ATF statistics. Cars kill many times more than guns. ? Ban cars ?? More people are killed with knives and hammers than guns. The car made the drunk person run over the kid on a bicycle – just like the gun killed the bank teller. <( 0'bummer logic]

          • b4k9zp

            Your statement about “more people are killed with knives and hammers than with guns” is true only of murders committed with rifles and shotguns of all kinds. People with handguns still kill far more people than are killed with knives and clubs.

          • worn out 123

            B.S. #1 assault weapon in America is the box cutter. You sure blow a lot of smoke, b4k9zp.

          • b4k9zp

            Check the FBI Uniform Crime Reports data for 2010 through 2012, at least. Look at Table #20, which breaks down the weapons used in homicides nationwide according to types–all weapons, handguns, rifles, shotguns, unknown firearms (where the kind of firearm could not be ascertained from evidence available), knives or other cutting implements, “other weapons” (which includes but isn’t limited to all kinds of clubs, etc., as well as ropes cords, pillows and so on); and “hands, fists, feet, etc.”

            Knives and other cutting instruments accounted for about fifteen percent of the homicides with all weapons reported to the FBI in each year from 2007 through 2012. Handguns accounted for an average of about 65% of all homicides in each of those years. Rifles and shotguns, together, accounted for fewer homicides than did “other weapons [clubs, etc],”, “knives or other cutting implements” or “hands, fists and feet, etc.” on average in each of those years.

      • OSAMA OBAMA

        Hear about the Black cop in Salt Lake City who shot an innocent, white, 22 year old? Of course you didn’t. Hundreds of whites protested by going to work the next day.

        • tinkerunique

          OF COURSE = UNDERSTOOD ! What is the difference between “American attitude” and “thug attitude”.

          • OSAMA OBAMA

            In the “white community”, a white thug will get no sympathy, in the black, he will be idolized and riots will ensue if found guilty.

  • Charles Hargrave

    Women need to start carrying concealed weapons,too many of them are being grabbed and molested or killed,if they fire a few shots at the creeps who want to do harm a lot of the problems would be solved,but if anyone talks to a Policman they’ll say not to carry,just call 911,and then the Para Medics can claim a dead body,protect yourselves ladies!!!.

    • tinkerunique

      IF you carry, practice a bunch, or frequently. ADVICE to all, “DON’T get scared ! GET PIZD ! Most people may say a lady can’t hit the side of a barn …. BUT, let her get PIZD and give her a glass ashtray and she’ll NEVER miss. ATTITUDE has a lot to do with it.

      • NVoffroader

        I have trained my Wife, Daughter, and two Grand Daughters to shoot and believe me they are deadlier than any man I have worked with. Just tell them to picture the targets as somebody they don’t like. Walk a mile in a LA cops shoes. Retired LEO

        • tinkerunique

          TRULY UNDERSTOOD. As a past Navy Seabees Small Arms Instructor, my daughter shoots better than a lot of guys. What is funny, she shot better than her (past) boyfriend / then husband after he joined the Army. He shoots at a pop can – she lays the can down and shoots thru the pop-top.

          • b4k9zp

            good for her!

          • 5live5

            Proven fact that most women are natural shooters. IF they listen.

    • 5live5

      a friend of mine’s girlfriend has a CCW and carries a .45. She was accosted by a thug one night and the guy told her that he was going to enjoy her. she pulled her 45 put against his crotch and asked him just how he was going to do that without the equipment. He damn near fainted. Very cooperative when the cops took him away. BTW the cops didn’t give her any crap.

  • Had Enough

    Moderator: how come I had to pull this article up 3 times before your take the poll pop up would quit blocking the article??????

    • independent thinker

      I do not have that problem. When the pop up shows up I just click on the X that closes it or left click on a blank space at the side of the article and it goes away.

  • Had Enough

    I’m glad the trucker wasn’t injured. Now how long do you suppose they held the crazy guy!

  • Jarhead

    Grandpa was lucky this time…….hopefully there will be no next time BUT if there is, I suggest firing a ‘few’ rounds & then reloading.

  • Dirty Harry

    For women: Micro-Shot Pepperspray: http://youtu.be/LnXjOlmq8aE

  • Dirty Harry

    This is not SPAM: Two other versions will stop thugs as well in non-gun states: http://youtu.be/ExiHZUSYJcE & http://youtu.be/iMJPdHEBHno. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

  • james walls

    Parlayer it is that kind of stupidity that makes gun owners look bad to other people no the truck driver did the right thing

  • gk.price

    if you are outnumbered or smaller than the “opponent” then AT LEAST the safety should be OFF

  • David

    Everyone needs to stop giving the advice of “Warning Shots”. There’s a man in Florida that’s facing 20 YEARS in jail for firing a Warning Shot. The logic is that you could have killed an innocent person in the vicinity or a mile or so away if you shoot into the air. Somehow I don’t think they’ll fall for “I keep a BLANK in the chamber for a warning shot.
    Make no mistake, the Anti-Gunners are out to get as many of us as possible. You fire a warning shot, kiss your family good bye.They’ll throw your ass in jail and you’ll get sued for the “Emotional Trauma that you caused the badguy”. Then they’ll form a circle jerk and sing cumbuya

    • 5live5

      Is that the one that heeded joe PUKE biden’s advice?

      • David

        The article didn’t say. Daughters 17 y.o.boyfriend. has no place to go, family takes him in, 1 week later discover he’s stealing Dad’s post op. pain meds and abusing daughter. They kick the punk out. days later hear fighting and objects breaking in daughter’s room. Dad orders him out, punk starts punching holes in living room wall. Punk charges at Dad w/ clenched fist, Dad fires warning shot into L.R. wall. Punk attacks Dad ripping loose stitches, then leaves. WEEKS later punk goes to cops to report gun incident. Dad THINKS cops are there to take report. WRONG, they lock DAD up despite Wife and other daughter telling same story about punk attacking Dad.
        I read it only a couple of days ago, shouldn’t be hard to find. Happened in Florida (The East Coast California ) Kid should’ve been arrested for 1. Theft of a prescribed narcotic,2. Assault against girl friend 3. Assault against Dad 4. Trespassing 5. Property damage
        Instead 53 y.o. man facing 20 years (mandatory ?) for reckless discharge of firearm or some BS along those lines.

  • Pedro_Schwartz

    police ended up finding a realistic looking pellet gun with a silencer

    Huh? Never heard of such a thing. Maybe I’m just out of touch. What does a “silencer” do on a pellet gun? Reduce the discharge from “PFFT” to “pfft”?

    • Combatvet52

      I’ve seen the suppressor on the Gamo rifle never on a pellet hand gun.

  • He should of emptied the gun on him. Just to be safe. If a drugged guy showed up at my house it is not the time to be “Mr. Nice Guy”. He could of attacked at any time.

  • David Markham

    He took a hellofa gamble and won, I was in same situation and he did not stop, I had no choice but shoot!

  • reagangs

    I use to carry a .38, 6 inch barrel revolver and a .45 semi Army issue when I traveled a lot. Only used it once while accidently getting lost in LA during the Watts riots. While at a stop light, a huge black dude approached the drivers side and when I flashed both guns, he backed off and I drove through the red light. That’s all it took.

  • apzzyk

    The best thing about this story is that no one was hurt or killed. He did the right thing – just stopped him and called the cops to take him away. If he would have shot the intruder, the cost to the public would have been much greater – that would have taken more of the taxpayers money, and since the pellet gun was in the weeds, there would have been the disproportionate use of force by the property owner with possible financial damages to him or even possible criminal charges.
    In Boulder County, CO, there is a prohibition on camping in public spaces, with the penalty being jail time, so people are intentionally camping where they will be caught and spend time in the warmth of the jail – at public expense. Here, it would be far less expensive to the taxpayers if there were sufficent places where they could camp inside would be less expensive to the taxpayers. However, as we are told, it is their own fault that they are homeless and need to be punished.
    This approach sounds like Brer Rabbit tell Brer Bear that he doesn’t care if Bear eats him, so long has he doesn’t throw him back into the Briar patch.
    The reason that even convicted criminals can usually have pellet guns is that shots from them are almost never lethal to any thing larger than a bunny. I have been shot by them when I was a kid and we were ‘playing’ and they hurt, but would barely penetrate a shirt and never a pair of levis.
    I live in an area in a city which is essentially rural – large natural open spaces, and the reason that I (unarmed) try to run off people is strictly for personal liability – even with my land posted, if someone is hurt on it I can still be held liable. My out buildings and my house are locked when I am not here – as they are supposed to be to protect my belongings, and what is left outside is, to me, not all that important. Who would steal a wheel barrow?

  • Paul Wilson

    Abe Lincoln ounce said” Keep your mouth shut and look like a fool or open it and remove all doubt”. Looks like that would apply to most of the negative comments on this subject.

  • ingerson

    Believe one might mention the kid in SLC shot by a Black Policeman while listening to his head phones and reaching to turn them off to hear what the policeman was saying? And we must remember the police (some who are very good persons and police) have weapons to protect themselves and not us per se’

  • Clay

    I LIVED IN tn FOR SOME FIVE YEARS AND THERE ARE good folks THERE…BUT THIS “crazy” WAS LUCKY THEY HE DID NOT GET “BLOWN AWAY”.. I HOPE THE LIBERALS ARE SNE ENOUGHT TO RERELIZE HOW “LUCKY” THE INTRUDER WAS…GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE….PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!

    • 77099

      true, but its people who would sit around with a gun on their lap, in public, and then wonder why the police did not realize it was a pellet gun. If you have to have a prop use a sling shot, its safer.

  • ABBAsFernando

    Where VILE LIBERAL SCUM convinced people only police have the right to be armed I have no idea. Our founding fathers intended all law abiding citizens to be armed to defend themselves and uphold the law.

  • hangman57

    Lock and load !

  • luvzforplay

    Obama wants our guns to disappear because he knows we the people aren’t going to take much more of his bullship and knows he is number one on the worlds hit list , I know the blacks see through his game , and even the Democrats are trying to distance themselves. I just can’t understand why impeachment or imprisonment hasn’t happened yet !!

    • deliverusfromstupidity

      Your tin foil hat is letting thru dangerous gamma rays. try doubling up on the foil.

      • luvzforplay

        I don’t wear hats , but if you have that problem I will buy you a large roll of foil , double thick if you feel that you need the extra protection !

      • ihatelibs

        Go play with your Dolls now GirlieBOY

      • William Benton

        how about you slobber Dixie on my meat bugle

        • bruner10

          That’s real intelligen.

      • donaldpeterson

        You should abide by your signature!

    • Lizard

      I hope that day never comes … But as Gun owner if they try taking my Guns that’s when they our breaking laws and i should have every right to defend my rights ..

      • gary

        it is coming sooner than you think ,as odumbass goes to Germany to sign a treaty to go through the un to disarm us and I do not care if the senate does not ratify the treaty odumbass will act as though it has and it will not bother him to be a criminal and when he tries I will take at least 2 scumbags with me when they try to take my guns and the uniform of a traitor will not slow me down much this nation is going to erupt in flames ,and soon and Obama and his lies will light the powder keg ,I can only hope when the smoke clears ,most of our current problems will lie face down on the battlefields ,if we gotta do it lets get something out of it

        • Lizard

          Yup i feel same way … They have pushed Gun owners to point of snapping real bad …Why not work on making jobs for needy .. Seems like Obama and rest of thugs our begging every day to make all he// break loose .. First Obama needs to prove who he is before signing any more laws ..All i know so fare Obama lie’s none stop and is Muslim lover to hilt

          • Speak2Truth

            Communists have been working to destabilize the USA for a long time. Whether they do it by government crushing the life out of and pillaging the nation or by inciting rebellions and civil war among its people, the Democrat Left are intent on bringing this nation to ruin.

        • JacktheFAC

          What are you going to do when Caliph Hussein the Obamanation takes his magic pen and signs a Presidential decree ordering us to turn in our guns?

          • Spiritof America

            All he needs is a typo………………………………..turn ON our guns or that order . He has a god complex,………he thinks he is unbeatable.

      • bruner10

        HOW MUCH MORE will it take to realize the 2nd amendment has to be discussed,thereisnoright to own a gun.
        Guns are on the front burner again, there is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun. Why aren’t we debating that THE 2ND AMENDMENT
        THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE WILL GO NO PLACE UNTIL THE 2ND AMENDMENT HAS BEEN FULLY DEBATED. “[THE} GOVERNOR {IS} CONSTITUTIONALLY THE COMMANDER OF THE MILITIA OF THE STATE,that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811. i.e. The 2nd amendment is a military document whereas the Governor gets his constitutional right to possess a national guard within his state.
        Subject: A Superb article about guns and the 2nd amendment
        The debate on gun control will go nowhere until the debate on the 2nd amendment has concluded. Some are doing an enormous dis-service to the US public. I think they might be a little over their head as far as knowledge of our constitution. I am sending an article about gun ownership and the 2nd amendment. The article of many by Marc Rubin which I believe the media would be wise to invite him on their program. It would send the debate into
        new territory which would provide an exciting new slant on the subject.
        There is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was
        By: Marc Rubin
        There’s been a lot in the news lately about the Obama Justice Department supposedly wanting to take away peoples 2nd amendment rights. And the issue of illegal guns going to Mexico and contributing to the gang violence has brought up discussions as to whether actions proposed by the Justice Department might be violating 2nd amendment rights. Obama in his recent press conference with the President of Mexico, in answer to a question about banning assault weapons said he thought they could do it and “still respect the 2nd amendment right to bear arms”.
        And just the other day the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case involving Alameda County in California that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals.They were wrong.
        Every so often the discussion of the 2nd amendment crops up as it’s doing now and the same people make the same mistake and show the same ignorance regarding the 2nd amendment.
        Publicly there are few politicians or people in the news media well versed enough in the Constitution to get it straight. That and the fact that most of them are afraid of getting a lot of angry letters from people who don’t want to hear that truth or politicians who are afraid that speaking the truth will cost them votes and typically politicians and journalists always take the cowards’ way out. But the plain truth is, once and for all, the 2nd amendment has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with an individual’s right to own a gun. And never did. There is no Constitutional right to own a gun.And there never was.
        Not that I’m a proponent of confiscating people’s guns. Or banning them. I’m not. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere to show that guns owned and registered by law abiding citizens are any threat at all to the public welfare and most statistics prove it. Drunk drivers are literally hundreds of thousands of times more dangerous and more of a threat to public safety than anyone legally owning a gun. But for gun enthusiasts and politicians to keep trying to hide behind the 2nd amendment doesn’t do anyone any good. It just promotes the kind of dishonesty as well as public ignorance and pandering by politicians that most citizens are tired of. It also shows an unwillingness by politicians and the press to simply be honest.
        Whatever laws we have in this country governing guns is and always has been the result of political will and acts of congress, not the 2nd amendment. This is why the NRA has a very effective lobbying effort. If the 2nd amendment had anything to do with an individual’s right to own a gun they wouldn’t need lobbyists and would save a lot of money. But political will is also why Congress will never pass a law banning individual ownership of guns. There is no political will by any political majority to do so and probably never will be.
        The fact that Obama “agrees” with a 2nd Amendment right to own a gun just shows again, how either Constitutionally ignorant or willfully ignorant politicians can be, which is an utter disgrace considering their position. As far as most citizens are concerned, they simply believe what they read or what they are told. It’s not up to them to be researching the Constitution to learn what it really means, but it is up to someone like the President and other members of Congress who swears to uphold and defend it to know what they are talking about. Which they clearly don’t.
        People ignorant of the Constitution which unfortunately includes the President, along with many members of Congress and the press, seem to refuse to read the 2nd amendment as it was written. And to acknowledge that the Constitution and the people who wrote it and founded this country were the greatest collection of geniuses in the principles of self government this country ever had at one time in one place. When you acknowledge that, then you take the words they wrote and argued over, debated and ratified in the Constitution seriously. And you don’t try to pretend they mean something they were never intended to mean to suit your purposes. They knew what they were doing. They knew what they were saying. And they knew what every word of that amendment meant ( as well as everything else in the Constitution). And every word in the 2nd amendment means the same thing today that it meant in 1789 and in all the years in between.
        The fact that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individual’s right to own a gun is not a secret. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, Chief Justice during Nixon’s term wrote that “the idea that the 2nd amendment has anything whatsoever to do with an individual’s right to own a gun is the biggest Constitutional hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”.
        And if you don’t want to take Burger’s word for it, there is one other important group that knows the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun. The NRA knows it. More about that later.
        There is a philosophical approach in applying the constitution that ironically enough is the conservative approach and it’s called “original intent”. Where the original intent of the framers is known and is clear, where their words and what they meant and intended are clear, there can be no other interpretation of a particular clause, provision, article or amendment other than what the framers meant and intended. Nowhere is that clearer than in the second amendment. And while there are many, many ways to prove the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individual’s right to own a gun (all of which I will provide), all it really takes to understand the amendment is what you were taught by Mrs. Applecheeks, your 4th grade English teacher when you learned how to conjugate a sentence with a subject and a predicate.
        But the first thing you need to know about the 2nd amendment is something very few people know: it was written,rewritten and revised 7 times. That’s right, 7 times. There were 7 versions of the 2nd amendment, and they are all available to be seen in the Library of Congress.
        The 2nd amendment is only one sentence yet the Founders took the time to debate every word.and revise it seven times. And so, as a result of their debates and a desire to be abundantly clear, they changed a word here, another one there, added and deleted, until they arrived at the final version, to make sure its meaning was crystal clear and would endure. And so as a result of their debates they revised it seven times until there was unanimity. They did not rewrite it seven times so people could pick and choose what words they wanted to hear and ignore the rest. Or make them mean what they wish they meant.So keep in mind that every single word was important to the Framers and what they intended. Every word.
        The amendment reads: “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”.
        Read the whole sentence not just part of it and go back to your fourth grade English class and how to conjugate a sentence.The subject of that sentence, and therefore the amendment, is ” a well regulated militia” not “the right to bear arms”. The subject is the militia and the modifier is “necessary to the security of a free state” which is the purpose of the amendment.
        The 2nd amendment is about giving the states an absolute right to have their own armed militias which today has been transformed into the National Guard.It also guarantees that the states have the right to have the same weapons as a federal army, a right in existence today and has always been, since the National Guard of every state does have most of the same weapons that the Federal army has. National Guard units have tanks, they have fighter jets. They have bombers.And it’s why National Guard units have been fighting in Iraq since 2002. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the states to have them. It is also what allowed the states of the Confederacy to have the weapons to fight a Civil War.
        If you think the amendment gives an individual the right to have those weapons try putting a tank in your backyard.And keep in mind the entire amendment wasn’t written so that it could be diced and sliced with words ignored to suit someone’s purpose. The amendment means what it says.
        The next line refers to ” the right of the people…”.
        For those who don’t know there are two types of rights enumerated in the Constitution, states rights and individual rights. As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state’s right they used the term “the people:”. When they were referring to an individual right, they used the word ” person”.The 5th amendment is a good example. It begins with the words, “No person shall…” and lays out guarantees, among them, double jeopardy and that no person in a criminal case shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
        Once you understand who the Framers are referring to when they say “the people”, which is a collective for the individual states, and not referring to an individual right, it’s time to deal with the most misused and misunderstood part of the 2nd amendment – the words “to keep and bear arms”.
        Unfortunately for President Obama, Lou Dobbs, Joe Lieberman and others in congress and the media who badly and ignorantly misuse the phrase, “to keep and bear arms” doesn’t mean the right of an individual to own a gun.At least not in terms of the Framers intended with the 2nd amendment. It doesn’t mean the right to go hunting or take target practice or to shoot an intruder. It has nothing to do with an individual’s right of self-defense (though it doesn’t speak against it either). And it didn’t mean the right to strut down the middle of Dodge City wearing six guns. If it did Wyatt Earp wouldn’t have been able to arrest anyone who did and confiscate their guns because Earp banned them from Dodge City and no one ever accused Wyatt Earp of violating the Constitution.
        First the term “arms” meant something very specific to the Framers who wrote the 2nd amendment in 1789 and it meant the same thing to them as it means now and that it has meant all through history.
        The word “arms” in the 2nd amendment means one thing and only one thing. And it doesn’t mean the right to have a gun you have in your house. It means weapons of war. Military weapons of war.
        The “right to keep and bear arms” means that the Constitution is guaranteeing the states not only the right to have their own militias or military, but the right to “keep” their own weapons of war. “Arms” didn’t just mean guns. It meant cannon. It meant swords and bayonets, cannon balls, powder, even war ships. “Arms” meant anything that could be used as a weapon of war. And it guaranteed the right of the individual states to have any weapons they wished, including the same military weapons as the Federal army. That guarantee is made clear in the last clause. As everyone knows there is a big difference between someone who owns a gun store and someone who is an “arms” dealer.And arms dealer is in the business of selling military weapons.
        But the meaning of the word “arms” isn’t the only thing in the 2nd amendment that people get wrong. They also don’t know the meaning of the term ” to bear arms” which also had a very specific meaning to the Framers in 1789.
        “To bear arms” didn’t mean to show them off. It didn’t mean to go hunting or to use them to defend against a burglar despite what Lou Dobbs,President Obama and some Constitutionally challenged Congressmen think. “To bear arms” meant only one thing to the Framers It meant to go to war.
        The Founding Fathers in the 2nd amendment guaranteed the right of the individual states not only the means but the right to go to war and defend themselves both against the possibility of a future President deciding to become a tyrant and using military force to give himself dictatorial powers, or to defend themselves against a foreign enemy that might invade the shores of New York, Massachusetts, or New Jersey. It guaranteed that the states had both the means (” the right to keep…”) and to use them, (to “bear arms”,)to defend themselves without having to depend on a Federal Army to do it for them or against a Federal army itself if that became “necessary to the security of a free state”.
        If the Founding Fathers had intended the 2nd amendment to be about the right of an individual to own a gun they would have said so.And they didn’t.
        The final clause could be the most important because it impacts every gun law on the books. The clause says the right granted in the 2nd amendment “shall not be infringed”.
        “..shall not be infringed” means just that. It doesn’t mean ” shall not be infringed except sometimes..”: or “shall not be infringed unless we want it to be”, or “shall not be infringed unless we decide there is a good reason to infringe upon it”. It means the right granted in the 2nd amendment cannot be diminished, restricted, reduced, or encroached upon in even the smallest way.
        We all know what “fringe” means and where the fringe is — on the outer edges of something. And the amendment makes clear you cant encroach upon the right granted in the 2nd amendment even there, on the fringe.
        The 2nd amendment is only about a state’s right to have its own army and for that army to have any weapons it chooses, and that the Federal government cannot interfere with that right in any way. And that has been the case since 1789.It has never applied to an individual.And was never intended to.
        If the 2nd amendment had anything to do with an individual’s right to own a gun,the clause. “shall not be infringed” would make every single gun law on the books, and any restriction of any kind unconstitutional. The NRA knows this and knows both the “infringement” clause and the entire amendment has nothing to do with an individual’s right to own a gun. Otherwise they would have challenged gun laws a long time ago on the grounds they violated the “infringement” clause of the 2nd amendment.
        New York city’s concealed weapon law is a perfect example. You cannot carry a concealed gun in New York city unless you are issued a permit by the police department. Just the requiring of a permit would certainly be an “infringement” of a 2nd amendment right “to keep and bear arms” according to the Constitution if it related to individuals. But even more than that, 90% of the people who apply for the permit get rejected. You don’t get the permit unless the police department decides you can have one. And they decide most can’t.
        That doesn’t sound like a Constitutional right “to keep and bear arms” that hasn’t been infringed upon to me. And no one knows this better than New York Giants former star receiver Plaxico Burress who is was arrested, arraigned and is now looking at a 3 year mandatory jail sentence for accidentally shooting himself in the leg with a concealed hand gun he was carrying without a permit. Burress certainly has the financial means to challenge the law on Constitutional grounds and he certainly has the money to pay good lawyers but no one has even remotely suggested that they will challenge the New York City law on 2nd amendment grounds or that the law is a violation of the “infringement” clause. And for good reason. They would lose.
        So the NRA and their very smart lawyers have never brought suit against any state or municipality or against the Federal government challenging any restrictive gun law on the grounds that its unconstitutional and violates the rights granted in the 2nd amendment or the ” infringement” clause in particular.
        And if you are thinking “what about the DC gun ban and the Supreme Court decision”, even before it had been decided, constitutional experts and lawyers knew it had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment because DC is a special case and whatever the Supreme Court decision was going to be, it wouldnbt impact the 2nd amendment debate. DC is not a state. DC is essentially funded by Congress. They don’t even have a say in the election of the President. They stand outside anything that refers to states rights in the Constitution because it is not a state and the 2nd amendment is a states right issue, not an individual rights issue. The DC ban against hand guns ( which Obama was for before he was against) didn’t decide any 2nd amendment issues.
        The last thing to keep in mind with regards to “original intent”, is to understand America in 1789 which is something Justices do when they are deciding a constitutional issue where the legislative history isn’t known.They take everything into account to try and ascertain the intent of the Framers and the context in which the Constitution was written.
        America in 1789 was 90% rural. And in 1789 America just about everyone in the Colonies owned a firearm.They used them to hunt. They used them to defend themselves against Indian attacks. They were a tool as basic to American life in 1789 as a lawnmower is now to the suburbs.
        Owning a gun in 1789 America was common. It wasn’t controversial. And you can be sure that the greatest minds in self government the country ever had didn’t spend all that time debating and rewriting an amendment 7 times that gave people the right to own a lawnmower.
        Again, this has nothing to do with taking away people’s guns. There is no reason to. The problem in this country isn’t guns owned by law abiding citizens, its illegal guns that do the damage and laws need to be passed to address that, not restrictions on citizens who obey the gun laws already on the books.There should be some mandatory gun training on how to use a gun for anyone who wants one, just the way you have to pass a drivers test to get a license to drive to cut down on accidents and other public safety issues. But the gun problem in America is illegal guns.
        and an illegal gun means just one thing — a stolen gun or a gun obtained fraudulently.
        There should be laws requiring a gun owner to report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours to local law enforcement and any gun owner who has a gun lost or stolen twice in a year should have their licenses revoked. Mandatory security measures for gun dealers and shops could also be initiated to cut down the frequency of stolen guns.And additional jail time, stiff jail time should be imposed on anyone in possession of an illegal gun.
        If politicians who are Constitutionally challenged would stop misusing phrases like” to keep and bear arms”, clearly not having the slightest idea of what the clause really means,and what the Framers were talking about, maybe more time would be spent dealing with the real problems posed by illegal guns instead of hiding behind the charade of what they think the 2nd amendment means.s
        As far as the recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Alameda County in California, that ruling should come as no surprise. And it is not definitive. The 9th Circuit is the most liberal court in the country and only the most liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, one that completely disregards the original intent of the Framers and what the words actually mean, could choose to give the term ” to keep and bear arms” such a broad meaning and one completely unintended by the Framers. In fact the only way to apply the words in the 2nd amendment to an individual is to completely disregard what the words were intended to accomplish, which is what conservatives usually complain is legislating from the bench.
        There is talk of appealing the 9th Circuits ruling to the Supreme Court. But anyone can challenge any gun law in the United States as being unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates both the second amendment and specifically the “infringement” clause if they think the 2nd amendment applies to individuals.
        They can start with New York City’s concealed gun law. If they are right, the law will be struck down and every gun law in the U.S. will get struck down with it and the matter would be settled once and for all. And if not then the country can move on and focus on the real problem which is illegal guns.

        • Clay Fitzgerald

          WOW! Just… WOW! What a tirade; can’t make heads nor tails of it, but what a lot, and I mean a LOT, of crappola!

          • bruner10

            You all can’t understand anything not put out by the NRA which probably has cost millions of American lives by advocating a mis conception of the 2nd amendment. i.e. everyone in the U.S, should be able to own a gun. not what it says or was intended. It was meant for the militia and the only militia we have today are the States 50 National guards, The Governors are the commanders in Chief. Thus a well regulated militia. 4500+ gun deaths in the US per year vs less than 100 per year in the rest of the civilized and industrialized nations. Why is that?

          • donaldpeterson

            Boy are you full of crap. Go give Obama a Monica.

          • bruner10

            Wrong as usual . Info from the NRA?

          • donaldpeterson

            You can’t educate a moron. His mind is made up. He must be from Arkansas.

          • Valor

            That is for sure. You can not fix stupid. But he hasn’t got a mind.

          • bruner10

            The only moron I know from Arkansas is Mike Huckabee unless that’s where you are from.

          • Spiritof America

            If you called Mike Huckabee a moron you are NOT an American.

          • bruner10

            I listen to Huckabee every sat night at 8:00pm Every monologue he spends about 8-10 minutes demonizing the President of the US Obama. Has pretty much done it ever since he has been on Fox. Mostly disrespecting everything he does or tries to do. He’s a moron and a hayseed and should have no credibility. But that’s the type Fox News goes after. If you believe otherwise than you are out of the same mold. When they talk about Huckabee might be a presidential contender I have to laugh. On the other hand the GOP don’t have much to choose from.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            Oh no, the real moron from Arkansas, and a jackass to boot, is Slick Willie Clinton and his bitch spouse.

          • bruner10

            President Clinton was one of the most successful Presidents in recent history and Hilliary a successful senator and sec of state. The real moron is you. What has the GOP done lately , Not a damn thing. Let the Tea Baggers move them back to the stone ages.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            You’re just a gibbering idiot that can’t do anything more than regurgitate the usual liberal, secular-progressive, rhetorical BS. You simply represent the leftist, lunatic fringe that can’t or won’t contribute anything tot he betterment of the human condition except promote the extraction of more entitlements to the lazy SOBs that refuse to work… like yourself. Now just STFU!

          • bruner10

            I have been retired for 12 years and I am doing just fine thank you. I would rather be a liberal,secular-progressive lunatic fringe than a do nothing, right wing nut case Tea Bagger type that live in the 17th century and contribute nothing to society and lie about what the civilized society accomplishes to help all mankind not just the well healed. you all try to hide behind a do nothing political agenda that only thinks about self. You ought to be happy you live in a country that allows you to lie your way through life. A country that allows you to be the best you can be.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            You are a true, useful idiot and one of the primary reasons this nation is going to hell in a hand-basket.
            You know nothing about me, but here’s a little something for ya’: I’m a retired fed. I retired 8 years ago having over 30 years of both military and civilian service, there’s nothing you can tell me about living in this nation and what it means. I’ll grant that you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how ill-informed or uninformed it is, but you react, like most of your ilk, to anyone who would DARE to disagree, with snide, often vile remarks, name calling, and ad hominem attacks. You may be retired for 12 years, but the best YOU can be is nothing more then a bully an adolescent mindset that never matured over that of a 18 year old.

          • bruner10

            You are right about one thing, I know nothing about you and don’t want to. Oh, I can tell you are smart ass and idiot. You sucked that federal tit for a long time that the taxpayers paid for.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            So what the hell have you ever done to serve this country? What sacrifices have you ever made for it? You have absolutely no idea of what it truly means to be a patriotic American. I spent months, sometimes years away from home and family, at times risking my life and living/working in conditions that you couldn’t force a dog to live in without being arrested. For that I get a monthly stipend from my paid up federal annuity and distributions from my IRA… no Social Security, I’m not eligible except for $255 death benefit for what good that’ll do me.
            You get the last word if you want it.

          • bruner10

            I don’t care to boast about what I have done because I don’t know
            anybody who give a rats ass.What makes you think you are more a patriot
            than me or anybody else. The real patriots are buried at Normandy and Arlington National Cemetery etc. It will buy you a dozen crying towels and a arrangement of flowers. Maybe the Tea Baggers can help you out since you are a patriot

          • Valor

            I know it is pointless, but you might try reading what the framers of the Bill of Rights had to say on the subject in the Federalist Papers and other places. There is no question they meant THE PEOPLE. As Jefferson said “No free man shall be disbarred from the use of weapons!” So take you B.S. and stick it.

          • bruner10

            Jefferson wrote the 2nd amendment. “[THE} GOVERNOR {IS} CONSTITUTIONALLY THE COMMANDER OF THE MILITIA OF THE STATE,that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811. i.e. The 2nd amendment is a military document whereas the Governor gets his constitutional right to possess a national guard within his state. This is what the author say, don’t you think that would be a better source than the NRA.

          • Valor

            For your information Jefferson did NOT write the 2nd Amendment. You are so far off the planet you are either totally clueless, or a bender of the truth to fit a false narrative.

          • bruner10

            You are technically right. Madison wrote the first draft and several drafts later or final draft was singed off be several writers, Jefferson as president had to sign off on it and contributed to its writing. Jefferson authored the Bill of rights and the 2nd is sort of a part of that.”[THE} GOVERNOR {IS} CONSTITUTIONALLY THE COMMANDER OF THE MILITIA OF THE STATE,that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811. i.e. The 2nd amendment is a military document whereas the Governor gets his constitutional right to possess a national guard within his state.

          • madmemere

            Better go back and read the 2nd Amendment again (several times if need be); follow that up by studying “The Dick Act” of 1902; which reaffirms OUR 2nd Amendment Rights AND “can never be repealed, or changed” by “anyone”!

          • bruner10

            You are probably referring to a letter circulating in 2012 which was basically false.
            Claim: The Dick Act passed in 1903 “invalidates all gun control laws” in the U.S.
            FALSE
            Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2012]
            The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
            The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
            The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
            Origins: The American experience with the Spanish-American War of 1898 and its aftermath demonstrated the need for reform of the U.S. military. In an attempt to balance the competing interests of those who wanted the U.S. to maintain a much larger standing army and those who felt an expanded peacetime army was both too expensive and contrary to American tradition, in 1903 Congress passed the Militia Act of 1903 (also known as the Dick Militia Act or the Dick Act, named for Ohio Congressman Charles Dick) which established the National Guard as the Army’s primary organized reserve. According to I Am the Guard, a history of the Army National Guard: The Militia Act of 1903 was benchmark legislation that repealed the antiquated Militia Act of 1792 and converted the volunteer militia into the National Guard. In simplest terms, Guard units received increased funding and equipment, and in return, they were to conform to federal standards for training and organization within five years. The law recognized two classes of militia; the Organized Militia (National Guard) under joint federal-State control and the Reserve Militia, the mass of 18-45 year old males otherwise available for military service. The Dick Act required Guardsmen to attend twenty-four drill periods per year and five days of summer camp. For the first time, Guardsmen received pay for summer camp but not for drill periods. The law called for Guard units to conduct maneuvers with the Army and to receive training assistance and formal inspections from Regulars. The Guard was subject to federal callups for nine months, though its service was restricted to within U.S. borders. The participation of Guard members in national callups was no longer discretionary; any soldier not reporting to his armory during a federal mobilization was subject to court martial. It is hard to overstate the significance of the Dick Act for the National Guard. The practices of the volunteer militia as a self-supporting and largely independent entity gave way to a new military force with significant federal funding and subject to the administrative controls of the War Department. Most everything stated about the Dick Act in the example quoted above is erroneous, however:
            It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities … the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.
            Under current public law, the militia of the United States comprises two classes, not three: the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. The “regular army” (i.e., the U.S. Army) is not a class of militia. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
            Nothing in the Dick Act or any other item of U.S. legislation states that all members of the unorganized militia have an “absolute personal right to keep and bear arms of any type.” The term “unorganized militia” simply refers to a subset of private individuals (i.e., men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not part of the National Guard or the Naval Militia). Those persons are subject to the same legislative limitations on firearm ownership and possession as any other private individuals: the existence and enforcement of modern laws limiting the ownership of certain types of firearms is prima facie evidence that those laws have not been “invalidated” by a piece of legislation enacted back in 1903. (And even if such a claim were true, then the unfettered right to keep and bear arms would not apply to men over the age of 45 or to any women, as neither of those groups falls within the legal definition of “unorganized militia.”) The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
            legislation is immune from being repealed, and in fact much of the content of the Dick Act has effectively been repealed through the passage of subsequent modifying legislation such as the Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, and the National Defense Act of 1920. Moreover, “bills of attainder” and “ex post facto laws” have nothing to do with a supposed prohibition on the repeal of legislation: the former is a legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime without trial, and the latter refers to laws which retroactively impose punishments for actions that were legal prior to the passage of those laws.
            The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
            although it was true at one time, it is not now the case that “the President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their state borders.”
            The Dick Act authorized the federal callup of National Guard units for nine months (with the restriction that they serve within U.S. borders), and a 1908 amendment to the Dick Act eliminated both the nine-month callup limit and the restriction on National Guard units serving outside the United States. However, U.S. Attorney General George W. Wickersham declared in 1912 that authorizing the use of the National Guard for overseas service was unconstitutional. As noted in I Am the Guard, though, that 1912 restriction was lifted by legislation enacted in 1933 which provided that those who enlisted in a state National Guard unit simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States and thereby became deployable assets of the U.S. Army: Even as late as 1912, serious questions lingered over the legality of National Guard service overseas. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson asked Army Judge Advocate General Enoch H. Crowder to study the issue. Crowder found that the Guard was bound in its operations by the specific language of the Constitution and was not a substitute for a federal reserve force. He also opined that Congress had erred in the Militia Act of 1908 by authorizing the Guard’s use abroad. Secretary Stimson forwarded Crowder’s findings to the Department of Justice for a formal legal opinion. On February 12, 1912, U.S. Attorney General George W. Wickersham rendered an opinion that was potentially devastating to the Guard. Wickersham followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution and ruled that the federal government was forbidden from employing the National Guard for purposes beyond those enumerated in the Constitution’s militia clauses. The attorney general declared that
            provisions of the Militia Act of 1908 authorizing the Guard’s overseas service were unconstitutional, and furthermore, that the Guard could not serve as part of an army of occupation on foreign soil “under conditions short of actual warfare.” The Wickersham decision meant that the federal government could not order State troops overseas as long as they retained their status in the National Guard. In the War Department, the attorney general’s ruling destroyed the Guard’s value as a viable federal reserve. An important amendment to previous National Guard legislation came in 1933. Since the passage of the Dick Act thirty years prior, the Guard’s dual nature — its role as both a State and federal force — had confused and confounded many soldiers and legislators alike. Under the leadership of Milton Reckord, NGAUS and Guard supporters drafted and passed into law an amendment to the National Defense Act of 1916 that defined and institutionalized the Guard’s unique status. The legislation established the “National Guard of the United States” as a permanent “reserve component” of the Army consisting of federally recognized National Guard units. At the same time, the law identified the “National Guard of the several States” [as] consisting of the voluntary members of the State militias that served under the Governors. In simplest terms, the “National Guard of the United States” pertained to the Guard’s federal role as a deployable asset of the Army, while the “National Guard of the several States” recognized the role of Guardsmen on State active duty. Henceforth, officers would take a dual oath to both the nation and their State.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            Jefferson was president at the time the constitution was signed? That’s news to historians everywhere! Must be something you found while your head’s been stuck in your anus.

          • bruner10

            I don’t believe I said that. Jefferson was president when he authored The declaration of Independence, He was President from 1801-1809. but he helped draft every document we have today.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            I see you edited your earlier comment, oh well. Anyway, There’s no way Jefferson could have helped draft the constitution and there’s no historical record that he did so, as he was serving as minister to France at the time the constitution was drafted and ratified. The drafting of the constitution was done in a closed convention in Philadelphia in the late spring and early summer of 1787 and ratified June 21, 1788. Thomas Jefferson served as minister to France from May 17, 1785 – September 26, 1789.

            Your assertion that Jefferson “helped draft every document we have today including the Constitution” is completely without foundation and is physically impossible because that such an open ended declaration as to be absurd on the face of it.

          • bruner10

            Jefferson did help draft the constitution as well as Adams but they were both in France at the time of the signing and neither signature appears on the signed constitution.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            Your ignorance is overwhelming, John Adams was in England during that time, but neither one of them had any participation in the drafting of the Constitution in spite of your ridiculous assertion to the contrary. It would have been impossible considering the time frame, the distance and the slow state of communication in the day. The more you comment the more you demonstrate not just your ignorance but stupidity as well. If you have evidence to support your assertion, then by all means show it here. Just repeating something over and over again simply won’t make it factual.

          • bruner10

            Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation’s capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic. You were correct, Adam was in Britain , I meant to say they were in Europe during the signing.
            While overseas, Adams maintained close correspondence with Thomas Jefferson, particularly in regards to the debate over the Constitution. Although his position meant that Adams could not directly participate in the drafting or ratification of the Constitution in this crucial new debate, Adams did weigh in on the document by publishing Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America from London. In this lengthy work, Adams emphasized the superiority of constitutional democracies over monarchies,
            I never said that they help write the constitution but they had influence on the content. I used the word draft which was to strong of a word.

          • gutterfalcon

            AH-DUH…..Militia is CIVILIAN VOLUNTEERS……not what ever YOU choose to define them as.
            Keep trying to Blame, and put down NRA. The NRA is AMERICAN, more than I can say for the current president.
            After 200 years it took YOU to figure out that the Constitution did NOT mean what they wrote.
            SIEG HEIL !

          • gutterfalcon

            When you give or suggest Proof to people like that, they just turn away. Not even willing to read, or look up PROOF. Just watch T V and get comfortable in their recliner, and take in all the LIES, It has to be true, it was on T V.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            The SCOTUS disagrees. And if the NG is federalized, which the president has the authority to do, he becomes the CIC of ALL of the armed forces (military) of the nation.
            The crux of the matter is that the wording of the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States is pretty clear and any study of the intent of the founders is well known and understood when it refers to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” your tirades to the contrary not withstanding.

          • Valor

            BINGO!!

          • bruner10

            Go on thinking that , I hope you or a member of your family aren’t ever a victim of a dumb ass with a gun.

          • Valor

            I hope a dumb ass with gun doesn’t save yours.

          • bruner10

            Just that comment shows how stupid your are. Typical NRA thinking

          • gutterfalcon

            NRA ? can’t you think on your own ? NRA, Reagan, Bush. Oh & Racist. Are you capable of Thought on your own ?

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            If you really want to see someone who’s really stupid, just gaze at a mirror sometime; you’ll see a jackass gazing back.

          • Arizona Don

            I have said so many times before. You’re wasting your time with this guy. It is impossible to reason with an unreasonable person. His mind is made up he is correct and everyone else who disagrees with him is wrong. In other words he is both an imbecile and narcissistic just as is obama. He does not know the militia, during the revolutionary war was made up of untrained unattached (to any military regular army or so called modern guard unit) individuals called civilians. If it had not been for those citizens the outcome of the war would have been much different. Furthermore, nearly all Americans at the time were gun owners. The reasons for such weapons should be obvious to anyone who has ever studied history of those days. England on the other hand fought wars of attrition standing in open fields facing each other usually at a distance of under a hundred yards and more or less taking turns shooting each others troops, and usually won those battles, until that is the American civilians (militia) got involved and demonstrated to them how to win the war by fighting from cover. A successful tactic they had learned from fighting the American Indian.

            He makes the mistake so many progressives make. He, in his rants, makes statements proving, he thinks, the federal government was set up to rule the states. Of course anyone who knows anything about both the constitution and Federalist papers will know the complete opposite is true. The states allowed for and provided for the federal government. Therefore we have all the restrictions within the constitution regarding the federal government. The federal governments powers are specifically set forth in the constitution and are the only ones the federal government has. All other powers remain with the states constitutionally.

            Of course this administration and several others from Wilson to date have attempted to turn that around but so far until the current administration have been unsuccessful, obama with the aid of many henchmen both within and out side of government have made much more progress to negate the influence of state rights. That power has been usurped by the current administration to a degree only dreamed about by those who preceded obama. His transformation will not prevail however. FDR even attempted to convert the supreme court (during his terms) by increasing the size to better reflect he liberal progressive desires. He failed.

            In the final analysis this bruner10 knows, as does the administration, it is impossible to complete the fundamental transformation without negating in some way the second amendment. It will never be done and especially his way. He may have his mind made up but so do a hundred million or more real Americans and the second amendment will prevail even if it takes an all out war. It will prevail. Two revolutionary wars were started in this nation over or because of attempts to take our guns. Americans won both. First one in the colonies the second in Texas. If those progressives would like another try taking them or negating our second amendment of our constitution in an effort to take our guns they can try. No one can without our cooperation (surrender) and that will never happen.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            Yeah, I know! Engaging in a battle of wits with someone that comes to the fight unarmed is amusing just from the aspect of showing how foolish, ignorant and, usually, stupid liberal, secular-progressives really are.

          • gutterfalcon

            True Americans could DEFEND themselves. Just not you Socialists hopefuls.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            You should pull your head out of your “dumb ass.”

          • bruner10

            And that makes you part of the discussion. what do you have to act besides something stupid.

          • WeaselClubber

            We know your stupidity isn’t an act.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            Thank you, my friend. That’s the perfect rejoinder to bruner10’s stupid ass comment.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            I highly doubt that a dumbass will get the drop on me. I’m a licensed to carry concealed and exercise it regularly. My daughter is a competent shooter, so I have little fear that she’ll be a victim either.

          • bruner10

            Boy you are a real bad ass with all the firepower around. A large percentage of the gun deaths in the US are by people like you who think they are invincible or shoot a family member accidentally.

          • JacktheFAC

            None are so blind as they who will not see. When you convince a fool against his will, he remains unconvinced still. I have never met a liberal–so-called (di) Progressive–who had a lick of common, or “horse sense.” You prove my point.

          • bruner10

            I believe it is common sense to take a look on how can we prevent 45,000 gun deaths per year. People like you would have every body carry like the wild west

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            Been drinking a lot of the anti-firearms Kool-Aid I see.
            There have been firearms in the households I lived in from the time I was very young several decades ago, and to date no one has ever been shot by one. My training with firearms goes back nearly that far from the time I took my NRA firearms safety training in order to get hunting licenses when I was about 12 or 13. Later, I received extensive firearms training for service in the infantry, even attending the Army’s Infantry School at Ft. Benning, GA before serving a year in a combat zone. In the last decade I’ve also trained with the sheriff’s dept. in the county where I reside and taken other firearms training through private agencies. I don’t think I’m invincible, anyone who does is a fool, but anyone that goes around flinging such nonsense and believing nothing will ever happen to them is a bigger fool. So what’s your excuse for being an even bigger fool?

          • bruner10

            I don’t think I’m invincible, anyone who does is a fool, but anyone that goes around flinging such nonsense and believing nothing will ever happen to them is a bigger fool. So what’s your excuse for being an even bigger fool? You just made my point.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            Ok, Kool-Aid drinking bruner10, now your just posting nonsensical gibberish, fully making my point that you’re a fool and an idiot.

          • bruner10

            Ditto, You are a dumbass so quit responding to me , I have better things to do then try and communicate with a smartass like you. Pointless to answer anymore of your stupid remarks. You have your own version of events so keep them to yourself.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            Ok, bitch, you can have the last word when you respond to this. Then STFU!

          • gutterfalcon

            Again learn the English Language, by a Dictionary. You are a Socialist, Brainwashed, IDIOT.

          • bruner10

            That really makes a lot of sense. Who brain washed you the Tea Baggers or the NRA

          • gutterfalcon

            No, you see I’m an AMERICAN, Born here, Served my Country. AND I know how to Read….and do so.
            Tea Party are very simply Americans, you know, who want to follow the Constitution, The Law of the Land in the United States of America. The NRA is only demonized by Your Socialist T V Media. They are also actually Veterans, Americans-who follow the Constitution. Again People who have seen, lived etc. in Socialist Countries, unlike yourself, who just except the magic Box-T V and want to become Socialist.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            Very good and a most apt description of the mindset of ol’ bruner10.
            Thank you for your service. I, too, have served my country… over 31 years, both military and civilian service.

          • bruner10

            50% of our government is socialist and has been for years. National , state and local. From our school system , garbage man police , fire, post office, military, the Congress and white house. anything owned and run by the government is socialist by definition. The NRA by their lobbying has prevented any sensible control of the multi millions guns roaming the streets. They are responsible for thousands of gun deaths. The Tea Baggers are still living in the 18th century, they don’t want to see the country progress. They think the money needed for roads, bridges, military, social safety net and all the rest government does, grows on trees.

          • gutterfalcon

            Yes, you are Brainwashed ! Probably because you watch too much T V and you believe Everything it tells you. NRA members are Not Criminals, they very simply believe in the CONSTTUTION. Your Multi Million Guns roaming the streets are NOT NRA members, you IDIOT. I never knew there were Multi Millions of guns roaming the Streets. Another LIE. told to you by the Socialists, who want Total CONTROL. You see Moron, many of us have SERVED our Country, and seen the Other options of government. You believe in FANTASY LAND. It very simply & Plainly is NOT TRUE. that of course would be in Anaheim Ca. or Orlando Fla. called Disney Land/Disney World. I Honestly can Not believe you are an Adult & that Stupid. Your comment about money growing on trees is beyond any comprehension. You must ( HONESTLY ) be the very Stupidest person I’ve ever written to.
            How is it, that a person could come to believe such Drivel ? I hope you do Not roam the streets Freely.

          • bruner10

            You are still an idiot, just a bunch of gibberish as usual

          • gutterfalcon

            You call it gibberish, Every one else calls it ” The TRUTH “.
            I Honestly don’t know how YOU could become so Stupid.
            The Multi-Million guns roaming the streets,…are you referring to ” Fast & Furious ” that Obama, holder put on the streets and tried to blame on American Citizens ?

          • bruner10

            How can you see the truth with your head up your rear end.

          • gutterfalcon

            I can picture you typing that comment, as you stare Blankly into a Mirror.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            That comment is ample demonstration that the grey matter filling the space between your ears is nothing but oatmeal.

          • bruner10

            At least I will never go hungry. Don’t you have anything to contribute to the conversation, otherwise I am not going to respond to your ignorant remarks.

          • gutterfalcon

            So you’re trying to tell people, that when they wrote the Amendments they were actually talking about something that was NOT invented yet ? National Guard.

          • bruner10

            The militia’s of the US became the National Guard of all the states and possessions. The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, of the Virgin Islands, and of Puerto Rico, as well as of the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government.
            The majority of National Guard soldiers and airmen hold a civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a National Guard member.[1][2] These part-time guardsmen are augmented by a full-time cadre of Active Guard & Reserve (AGR) personnel in both the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, plus Army Reserve Technicians in the Army National Guard and Air Reserve Technicians (ART) in the Air National Guard.
            The National Guard is a joint activity of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) composed of reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force: the Army National Guard of the United States[1] and the Air National Guard of the United States respectively.[1]
            Local militias were formed from the earliest English colonization of the Americas in 1607. The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. The title “National Guard” was used from 1824 by some New York State militia units, named after the French National Guard in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette. “National Guard” became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control from 1933.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            Good cut and paste job there, bruner. But what’s the point? If you’re trying to bolster your argument, as if you had one in the first place, it certainly isn’t clear how this post does so.

          • bruner10

            I was replying to a comment that said the National Guard was not a Militia. Although technically the civilian militia’s are legal because as for as I know its never been challenge in court. Since we have a US Military and National Guard, civilian militia’s aren’t relevant as described in the 2nd amendment. The real problem is many of the militias are formed in opposition to the US government, and any plan to circumvent the US Constitution by force of arms is NOT legal. Only if the government itself violated the Constitution would the militias be justified in fighting, such as the President declaring martial law, suspending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, etc. For exampe, the Japanese Americans (US citizens) during WW II would have been justified in taking up arms to prevent the rounding up of their families, taking of their lands, etc. That act was totally illegal, a total violation of the Constitution (as pointed out by J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI) and was another of the dark points of the USA…..

          • gutterfalcon

            You said yourself The National Guard etc. was part of the Military. You’re just proving my comment & proving yourself WRONG. Oh yeah I am a Veteran of the Military & I was in the Reserves also. Which have nothing to do with Militias, which are Civilian Volunteers. So what Branch were you in and in what Countries did you serve ? Oh you weren’t ? But you watch Socialist T V !

          • bruner10

            You aren’t smart enough to have been in the military. there are government militia’s and civilian militia’s. Civilian militia’s become illegal if they turn against the government. Ruby Ridge and Timothy McVeigh’s group for example.

          • gutterfalcon

            You just don’t know your stance, do you ? It is the DUTY to fight against the government, when they are doing things illegally against the CONSTITUTION ! DUTY all Military, Militias, & yes even AMERICAN Citizens. OUR DUTY ! Your examples are just that, examples of our government acting illegally. And No one doing anything about it.

          • bruner10

            Duh!!!

          • gutterfalcon

            You liberals, Fags, blacks etc. Don’t get to choose words and change their meanings, just because you Don’t like the Truth. I thought I had said to you before…..it is All Military’s, even All American Citizens DUTY to oppose illegal orders. Yes, especially when the illegal orders come from a Despot, or a group trying to over throw our CONSTITUTION—which is of course the LAW of the Land in AMERICA !
            Somewhere down the line in your ancestors some one had a set of Balls to leave their Country and come to America, to start new, a Better way of life. In America, the way it was started, set up, and run for over two hundred years………If you don’t like it, are not happy. Take a cue from your ancestors, Grow a set, leave, and move to a Country that is openly Socialist, or Communist. Stop trying to change MY,- OUR AMERICAN way of life. We have the CONSTITUTION, stop trying to change the meanings of words.

          • bruner10

            nobody I know is trying to change the meaning of any word or change the constitution I seems you want an interpretation to fit your agenda. last time I saw a copy of the constitution it was the same as it was over 200 years ago. If you don.t like any change, why in the hell don’t you move to some right wing Nazi country . you would fit right in.

          • gutterfalcon

            You keep trying to change the meaning of the word “Militia”. In your other post you are trying to change the Second Amendment, I am an American, The Constitution does NOT say Anything like ……….Except when Socialists try to take CONTROL,….That is what it tries to guard against ! ( people like you, and those who Brainwash people like you) I hope that in the institution where you live, you are under Constant observation. Also I think they have your Medication fouled up.

          • gutterfalcon

            Yes, I was in the Military–Two tours, Decorated, Honorably discharged. Yes we have a very corrupt government, Big Federal, democrat government. When the government does things illegally–that’s what you choose as your defense ? Watch much Propaganda T V ? How long did it take to Brain Wash YOU ?

          • bruner10

            noun
            1.
            a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. National Guard
            2.
            a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. National
            guard. Civil Militia aren’t recognized in the US. Ruby Ridge and Timothy McVeigh come to mind.
            whether you served in the military or not is irrelevant . The only propaganda TV I watch is Fox news But I don’t let their right wing bigoted right wing bullcrap in no way brainwash me.

          • gutterfalcon

            Silly, Silly little Imbecile, I know the meaning. I Served my Country, I am a Veteran. And a Militia is Civilian Volunteers. Very Plain and Simple. You want to believe Militias are not recognized by the Federal government. Oh, A-DUH, they are from the States. to Protect against Despots over running our government. Federal government is to deal with Foreign issues, State government is to deal with ” in house ” Didn’t you ever go to school ? Are you able to read ? , They Conceal information it Books. Ever heard of a ” Library ” ?

          • JacktheFAC

            Another brainwashed liberal heard from.

          • bruner10

            You are obviously brained washed by the NRA and Tea Bagger Party. I have studied the 2nd amendment off and on for 35 years. Its one sentence and has one meaning supporting a military document.
            A Caliph is usually a hereditary position. Since Barack Obama is not a Muslim but rather Christian and since he is American and not Middle Eastern, he cannot qualify for this position.

          • Speak2Truth

            It’s amazing this Bruner fellow can’t comprehend the clear, unmistakable words of the Constitution.

            THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

            It’s the law of the land. Yet, the idiot claims there is no such right.

            One need not ‘debate’ the Constitution in order to obey it.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            You’re right about that. He, bruner10, is one of the leftist, lunatic fringe elements of the liberal, secular-progressive wing of the democRAT party. He knows doodley-squat about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and, particularly, the Second Amendment. He comments as if the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t ruled the exact opposite of what he continuously asserts is the “REAL’ meaning of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

        • donaldpeterson

          I’m not sure just exactly what you are saying, but I think you should read the 2nd amendment again. It clearly says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Not the right of the militia! The Supreme Court has already made that decision.

          • he is just a libtard! they are always trying to bend the truth!

          • donaldpeterson

            Yea, he’s full of kool aid.

          • bruner10

            I have studied it for 35 years, The phrase the right of the people refers to members of the local militia to keep their arms at the ready in their homes. The national government did not want a standing army in the US. back then every male 18 or older was ordered to carry a gun. The word [people] signifies the state, If it meant individual it would have read [peoples].

          • donaldpeterson

            Blah Blah. open your eyes. You just read the way you want not the true meaning of the writing.

          • bruner10

            Maybe you should open your eyes instead of listening to the NRA

          • donaldpeterson

            I am the NRA as are the rest of its members.

          • bruner10

            Are they all that blind and stupid.

          • donaldpeterson

            You need to go back and pass the third grade.

          • bruner10

            That’s getting to close to all the Tea Bagger kindergarten dropouts.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            So, now you’re resorting to the timeless, liberal, secular-progressive tactic of ‘when all else fails, use ad hominem attacks and name calling.’ Next you’ll slough the race card if you can figure out how.

          • WeaselClubber

            Your local NAMBLA chapter called. They’re still waiting for you as they can’t start their meeting without the Chapter President.

          • bruner10

            If you are going to join the discussion, maybe you can find something intelligent to contribute. When you idiots can find anything to discuss you attack the messenger. Shows what type of people I am dealing with.

          • WeaselClubber

            More fodder from the mental eunuch. You haven’t contributed ANYTHING substantial other thn your frustrated control freak hyperbole.

          • WeaselClubber

            Said the NAMBLA Chapter President

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            You still have your head stuck where the sun never shines, bucko!

          • donaldpeterson

            In February 2003, the six residents of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law (part of the District of Columbia Code) enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. This law restricted residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. The law also required that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.”[17] They filed for an injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina dismissed the lawsuit.

            On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal in a 2–1 decision. The Court of Appeals struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act as unconstitutional. Judges Karen L. Henderson, Thomas B. Griffith and Laurence H. Silberman formed the Court of Appeals panel, with Senior Circuit Judge Silberman writing the court’s opinion and Circuit Judge Henderson dissenting.

            The court’s opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Heller – who applied for a handgun permit but was denied – had standing.

            The court then held that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms”, saying that the right was “premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, “the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” The court determined that handguns are “Arms” and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia.

            The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense:
            That’s pretty clear. Chew on that. Let’s see how you can misunderstand that.

          • bruner10

            So are missiles and b-1 bombers and tanks etc. are arms, where do you draw the line. I don’t see anything clear. still thousand are being killed every year by guns.

          • donaldpeterson

            You don’t see anything clear except what you want to see.

          • bruner10

            And you do.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            There are none so blind as those who will not see.

          • donaldpeterson

            Got that right.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            How does one keep and bear missiles, tanks and “b-1” bombers? Those are considered to be crew served weapons systems and weapons delivery vehicles.
            And here’s a little newsflash for you if your pea brain can absorb it, as the number of firearms in the last several years has risen dramatically, the number of crimes committed and lives lost through the use of guns of all sorts has dropped, yet meatheads on the left keep trying to remove firearms from those who have never demonstrated a proclivity to use guns illegally. All the while the highest crime rates and greatest threat to life and limb by guns is in those locales with the most strict and stringent laws on the civilian possession and use of firearms. Go figure… if you can, which I doubt.

          • donaldpeterson

            In February 2003, the six residents of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law (part of the District of Columbia Code) enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. This law restricted residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. The law also required that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.”[17] They filed for an injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina dismissed the lawsuit.

            Court of Appeals

            On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal in a 2–1 decision. The Court of Appeals struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act as unconstitutional. Judges Karen L. Henderson, Thomas B. Griffith and Laurence H. Silberman formed the Court of Appeals panel, with Senior Circuit Judge Silberman writing the court’s opinion and Circuit Judge Henderson dissenting.

            The court’s opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Heller – who applied for a handgun permit but was denied – had standing.

            The court then held that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms”, saying that the right was “premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, “the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” The court determined that handguns are “Arms” and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia.

            The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense:
            How can you twist that around?

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            HAHAHAHA! You’re a pretty funny fellow if you think anyone can take what you assert seriously. You really need to pull your head out of that orifice between your butt cheeks and take a breath of fresh air, your brain is suffering from oxygen deprivation.

          • bruner10

            You have already established you are a dumbass, Why don’t you stop while you are ahead. Don’t you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            All I was doing was stating the obvious… at least to everyone else. I’m just trying to be helpful to someone so mired in stupidity and ignorance as yourself.
            BTW, I’m far ahead and above you, at least intellectually.

          • bruner10

            Sure had me fooled, try showing that you have some intelligence. They always say if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            I can hear you quacking from here.

          • bruner10

            That’s probably an echo.

          • Clay Fitzgerald

            You quack me up! Now that’s just too funny, NOT, you moron!

          • WeaselClubber

            No, it doesn’t. The term ‘people’ does not magically take on a new context in the 2nd Amendment as opposed to the ‘”people” mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9yh, and 10th Amendments.

          • bruner10

            I don’t think any leftist is trying to redefine the constitution. We mean to say that our government is made up of the citizens. We are a government -by- the people, -for- the people.

            The government is of, by, and for the people. The people are primary. The government is a derivative of them (us).

          • canislupus

            Pay no attention to this troll. From time to time he shows up like a plugged toilet. Last week he pretended to be a woman.

          • donaldpeterson

            Sounds about right.

        • gutterfalcon

          Militia is NOT Military. Militia is Civilians volunteering. Do you only listen to what the T V tells you ? Read a Book, watch a Documentary. I don’t know why people try and change the meanings of words. Military is Military–Militia is volunteers-Civilians. Like GAY – is Happy or Festive. Not where do I learn how to Swallow a Sword. If you Don’t want to own a gun…..then Don’t buy one. But Stop trying to take our RIGHTS away. Go move to North Korea, or Cuba. Spout your Trival to them, see how far you get trying to change their way of Life & government.

          • bruner10

            That might have been true 200 years ago. The National Guard is the state militia. Civilian militias today are renegade group’s and have no legitimacy.

          • gutterfalcon

            So that’s the definition……because YOU say so ? Who ( yourself ) said State Militias were – National Guard ? READ a BOOK, watch a Documentary. A Militia IS Civilian Volunteers. Always has been, even if you don’t agree. Sorry you’re Wrong- accept it.

        • Stephen Crosson

          Rubbish.
          The founding fathers outlined their beliefs in The Federalist Papers and their intention was that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms for self defense and as a last resort to stopping tyranny, as they just had to do to after signing The Declaration of Independence.

          • bruner10

            I am intensely annoyed by the occasional refrain by the pro-gun side that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the American populace from a government-imposed tyranny. This is complete crap, everyone knows it, and yet it’s still brought up sometimes.
            Maybe in the day of muskets and cavalry charges this was true (maybe). But it’s obviously absurd to claim that now. Small-caliber handguns cannot compete with a modern military force in any way. A military force can field tanks, long-range artillery, attack helicopters, and unmanned drones. And (aside from the drones) that’s all ancient technology. To actually resist a military incursion the 2nd Amendment would have to allow private citizens to own heavy ordnance and high-explosives at the minimum. Every successful modern resistance has been supplied and/or supported by a foreign nation.
            No one believes that the 2nd Amendment SHOULD allow those things. So it’s not about stopping a domestic tyranny. Stop pretending it is.

          • Stephen Crosson

            You need to relax.
            “Maybe in the day of muskets and cavalry charges this was true..”

            That’s exactly the point of my post and why it applies to the 2nd Amendment. As I stated, The Founding Fathers had just used firearms to liberate the colonies after declaring our independence from England.
            How can you pretend that very important fact is irrelevant?

            The rest of your rant is hardly worth responding to, but I’ll waste another couple minutes.

            I don’t think most people want to end up in a civil war against the government, and you should realize the difference between acknowledging a right and advocating for a war against the government. I’ve never even suggested that I would want to attempt to get into a war with my own country.The conversation was about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment as it was written by The founding Fathers.
            I’ll bet you think “well regulated” means the government can regulate firearm ownership, when at the time “well regulated” meant something was ready, properly calibrated, and in good working order. This was a common phrase in use at the time and also for a century after.

            It seems as though you being “intensely annoyed” is just a matter of being too emotional. I’m not surprised because generally all I here from gun control advocates are overly emotional arguments designed to manipulate people’s feelings. I guess when the American people continually reject more gun control and the Supreme Court has upheld an individuals right to keep and bear arms inside and outside our homes for self-defense, the gun control crowd is getting more desperate. They’ve attempted to “soften” their message from outright gun bans(even though that’s still the ultimate goal) to the BS of “common sense” gun control legislation like the ruse of “universal background checks”. The latest polls show most Americans don’t favor any further gun control.

            “No one believes that the 2nd Amendment SHOULD allow those things”
            Do you really think “no one” agrees with The Founding Fathers?
            This type of absolute, ridged, statement only proves how isolated you are from the facts surrounding this issue.

          • bruner10

            They did use firearms to liberate the colonies with a series of local state militias which we had instead of a standing national army Today it would be equivalent to the states National Guards without a US military. The National Guards today are well regulated with the states Governors as Commanders in Chief of their states Guards. The last report I read was that Over 80% of NRA members support stronger gun controls. The common sense approach would be that not every Tom Dick And Harry should have a gun. 45,000 gun deaths in the US vs less than a 100 in most all civilized societies bears that out. So go on believing all the NRA crap if it makes you feel good. The NRA’S approach over the past 70 years has probably cost over 2 million US lives.

          • Stephen Crosson

            You’re simply wrong with this interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and are at odds with all the recent Supreme Court and Federal Appeals courts decisions. In fact in a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding a citizens right to carry firearms for self-defense in San Diego county, the justices wrote a lengthy opinion pointing out other lower courts errors in decisions in which they haven’t properly applied the highest court’s rulings.

            As an NRA member who participated in a survey conducted by them, the results were 75%-80% of members DON”T support any further gun control, especially the bogus “universal background check” legislation that failed in 2013. Anyone else claiming NRA members support further restrictions on our gun rights is lying. I’ve been a gun owner for 30 years and just joined the NRA a few years ago when it became even more apparent that gun control advocates were going to try to ban guns again. Do you remember the failed semi-automatic rifle ban(“assault rifles” to the uninformed) from 1994-2004? Statistics showed it had no measurable impact on violent crime. I joined the NRA to insure my family and I would be able to own firearms now and in the future. So as you see, I don’t own guns or believe as I do because of the NRA, I joined the NRA to be able to exercise my natural rights.

            Supporting American’s rights and freedoms, not only for me but future generations, does feel really good.

            You obviously subscribe to the gun control movements failed tactic of vilifying law abiding gun owners in an attempt to shame us into agreement. FYI, it has never worked and is the very reason the people you’ve chosen to ally yourself with have attempted to change their message in another effort to rebrand their unpopular agenda.
            I’ll put the responsibility of 2 million U.S. lives lost on the violent criminal scum that are responsible.

          • bruner10

            Glad you really feel good about your
            guns. [There is no 2nd amendment right right to own a gun
            and there never was]. Gun control is a separate subject
            controlled by the 1934 fire arms act, Heller was a 4-5
            decision which was only one vote from going the other was.
            The 2nd amendment is a military document that give the
            governor’s of each state to form and maintain a National
            Guard which they are Commander in Chief. The NRA don’t want
            you to believe that. Also the poll I read did say that 80%
            of the membership does want some type of gun control.The poll, which sampled 945 gun owners around the country and had a margin of error of +/- 3, also found broad support gun-owners for the principle that “support for 2nd Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.” In fact, more NRA members (87 percent) supported the statement than non-NRA members (83 percent). One wonders if the views of its supporters will be heard at NRA headquarters, as the organization opposes laws that attempt to implement several of the positions that Luntz’ poll established gun-owners support.
            National Firearms Act of 1934 covers firearms today, the
            enforcement is weak.
            The NFA did not inspire as much controversy in 1934 as
            gun-control acts do today, in part because of the general
            public perception that crime was out of control and in part
            because anti-gun-control groups such as the National Rifle
            Association (NRA) did not have nearly the strength or
            Lobbying power they would later have. In fact, the NRA
            formed its legislative affairs division, a precursor to its
            powerful lobbying arm, in 1934 in belated response to the
            NFA. Nevertheless, the NFA did result in several lawsuits
            claiming the law was unconstitutional, one of which reached
            the Supreme Court.
            In Miller v. United States, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83
            L.Ed. 1206 (U.S.Ark. 1939), two men were charged with
            transferring a double barrel 12-gauge shotgun in violation
            of the NFA. A federal district court quashed the indictment,
            ruling that the NFA did indeed violate the Second Amendment.
            But the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, disagreed.
            Writing for the court, Justice james mcreynolds famously
            dismissed the defendants case with this statement: “the
            absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or
            use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen
            inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable
            relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
            regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
            guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
            McReynolds added that “certainly it is not within Judicial
            Notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military
            equipment or that its use could contribute to the common
            defense.” He also noted that many states had adopted
            gun-control laws over the years.
            The NFA is still in force, codified in amended form at 26
            USCA § 5801 et. seq. As the first federal gun-control
            legislation, it set the stage for all other federal Gun
            Control laws, and its legacy overshadows the scope of the
            law and the limited number of weapons to which it actually
            applied.

          • Stephen Crosson

            I’m used to people like you twisting my words instead of taking them literally, but I’ll try to clarify things for you once again.
            I do enjoy guns, but I will gladly defend all of our rights guaranteed in The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and all the additional Amendments. So when I stated “Supporting American’s rights and freedoms, not only for me but future generations, does feel really good.”, I was referring to the 2nd Amendment, but I feel just as strongly about all of our freedoms and will defend all of them with the same passion.

            Gun control isn’t a separate subject from the 2nd Amendment as evidenced by the Attorney General’s concerns related to the National Firearms Act of 1934 and many Supreme Court decisions. They have all mentioned the 2nd Amendment in their decisions. How can you even entertain the convoluted idea the that gun control and the right to keep and bear arms are “separate” subjects?

            I already explained the NRA survey, but I know you because of your obvious bias against the NRA, you’ll never believe you’re being lied to by the mainstream media and the gun ban crowd. A nation wide survey of 945 gun owners, considering an estimated 90-100 million Americans own firearms, probably doesn’t cover a large enough cross-section of gun owners to have much meaning. The Luntz poll you referred to was done for(paid for) Michael Bloomberg’s now defunct Mayors Against Illegal Guns, so I can assure you it is biased and not reliable. Especially their bogus claims of support from NRA members. MAIG was caught lying so many times, and when many mayors realized Bloomberg’s true intentions was to ban individual firearm ownership , they began to leave his organization. Bloomberg dissolved and rolled MAIG into Everytown for Gun Safety(sounds innocent enough) and bankrolls that organization.

            I’ve debated gun rights with many different people in the last couple years and I have to say you’re on an island with your narrow view of the 2nd Amendment. As I already pointed out the Supreme Court doesn’t even share your view. Neither the Supreme Court case you reference, nor Associate Justice James McReynolds opinion that you quote, support your distorted assertion that the 2nd Amendment isn’t, and never was, about an individuals right to keep and bear arms. In fact the decision actually upholds our right because it only applied to a couple very specific firearms which have been upheld by the courts, with the exception of the failed semi-automatic rifle ban from 1994-2004. I’ve already pointed out the well known and documented failure of that misguided legislation, and it is for that very reason that many Americans have woken up to the big lie of gun control being about keeping us all, especially children, safer.
            You referenced the Heller decision, but failed to mention the McDonald decision which also upheld an individuals right to own firearms and forced Illinois to change their draconian laws. I know you pointed out the close vote in the Heller case, but it doesn’t change the decision or the fact a majority of justices upheld our 2nd Amendment rights. Have you ever stopped and thought if your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was correct, why has the Supreme Court ruled contrary to your belief? You’ve claimed in another post to have studied the 2nd Amendment for 35 years. Does it strike you as odd that your position hasn’t been used to suspend a citizens right to own firearms? I would like to think you would honestly consider and answer those two very important questions. If your argument was valid you can bet your ass some lawyer for the gun-ban crowd would have used it successfully to further infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.
            As for your example of the 1939 Miller v, U.S. court case, and Associate Supreme Court justice James McReynolds’ finding, the opinion that he wrote is related to an illegal shotgun because of the length of the barrel. If you carefully read his opinion it very clearly and expressly refers to a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen
            inches in length” and “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Again this opinion specifically applies to sawed off shotguns which is still the law today. The National firearms Act of 1934 was in response to the violent gangsters of that time and referred only to machine guns and sawed off shotguns. It was actually tax and registration legislation. U.S. Attorney General Homer Cummings thought that rather than banning weapons and infringing on the 2nd Amendment, they would tax such weapons out of existence. The article you reference is correct that this was the first gun control in America, but you have to look at the most recent Supreme Court decisions and recent Federal Appeals Court rulings to get the whole accurate legal context of our 2nd Amendment rights.

            I hope this helps you to understand the flaws in your argument.
            Have a good one.

          • bruner10

            Before Heller and McDonald the last time the SCOTUS took on the 2nd was miller in the late 30’s or early 40’s. Just because the court rules that doesn’t bar another challenge. Most of your observations are correct. Gore vs Bush is an example how the court errors . It will be revisited. The NRA using your dues to create one of the biggest lobbyist group in Congress. Its time we take a look at guns and not hide behind the 2nd Amendment as does the NRA.If you only debate an issue with like minded people, you just solidify your own beliefs and gain no knowledge. I have illustrated what the 2nd Amendment should look like to day and why.
            MODERN DAY VERSION OF THE 2ND
            AMENDMENT
            A WELL REGULATED NATIONAL GUARD
            NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHTS OF ITS MEMBERS TO BEAR ARMS FROM THEIR
            GOVENOR SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
            “[The] governor
            [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say,
            of every man in it able
            to bear arms.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy,
            1811
            The
            Second
            Amendment of the United
            States Constitution reads: (“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.”) Such language has created
            considerable debate regarding the
            Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe
            that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”
            creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States.
            Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts
            legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least,
            the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively
            unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory
            language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to
            restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense.
            Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A
            collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not
            have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal
            legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without
            implicating a constitutional right.
            In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court
            considered the matter in United States v.
            Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective
            rights approach in this case, determining that
            Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate
            commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not
            suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation
            or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . .” The Court then explained that
            the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the
            military. We didn’t have a standing army when the 2nd was written.

          • Stephen Crosson

            I know what the NRA uses my dues for, that’s one of the reasons I joined and contribute to their Political Victory Fund and the Institute for Legislative Action.
            It’s clear you favor banning firearms and your unconstitutional, revised, decimation of the 2nd Amendment has been suggested by retired Supreme court Justice John Paul Stevens in his latest book. Some ex military officer wrote an article, I think it was in Esquire last year, along the same lines. These people are arrogant, elitist, megalomaniacs that think they know what’s best for us all. As an adult in a free society I don’t need anyone to make decisions for me. Especially when they infringe on my God given, natural rights.
            I know you hope things change in the courts and want to see America changed for the worse, but most recent court finding have upheld one of our most precious rights.
            Thank god!!

          • bruner10

            Maybe we can agree to disagree.

          • Stephen Crosson

            Yeah, we definitely disagree!
            I can only hope that our freedom reigns.

          • bruner10

            Have a Happy Tea Bagger year.

          • bruner10

            I am intensely annoyed by the occasional refrain by the pro-gun side that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the American populace from a government-imposed tyranny. This is complete crap, everyone knows it, and yet it’s still brought up sometimes.
            Maybe in the day of muskets and cavalry charges this was true (maybe). But it’s obviously absurd to claim that now. Small-caliber handguns cannot compete with a modern military force in any way. A military force can field tanks, long-range artillery, attack helicopters, and unmanned drones. And (aside from the drones) that’s all ancient technology. To actually resist a military incursion the 2nd Amendment would have to allow private citizens to own heavy ordnance and high-explosives at the minimum. Every successful modern resistance has been supplied and/or supported by a foreign nation.
            No one believes that the 2nd Amendment SHOULD allow those things. So it’s not about stopping a domestic tyranny. Stop pretending it is.

          • bruner10

            Sorry for the double post

        • Speak2Truth

          I’m finding Bruner10 comments to be pretty much crap. The guy doesn’t seem to know what he’s going on about.

          He, and the article he copied and pasted, state:

          “The 2nd amendment is a military document whereas the Governor gets his
          constitutional right to possess a national guard within his state. ”

          Crap. The 2nd Amendment is a Civilian document. The Constitution has other clauses that deal with the military.

          “… the 2nd amendment has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with an individual’s right to own a gun.”

          Even though it SAYS that the Right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms
          shall not be infringed. Are you one of The People? Yeah, I thought so.
          And by “shall not be infringed”, it clearly states that Government is
          absolutely prohibited from interfering in your Right to arms, in any way
          whatsoever. You are an individual. It’s your Right.

          ” If the 2nd amendment had anything to do with an individual’s right to
          own a gun they wouldn’t need lobbyists and would save a lot of money.”

          More crap. Americans need those lobbyists because Government has chosen
          to ignore the Constitution that clearly prohibits it from interfering
          with the Right of The People (one of which is you) to keep and bear
          arms. Laws were made infringing on that right, in violation of the
          Constitution.

          “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

          That is the MANDATE in the 2nd Amendment. The other half of it
          indicates a purpose – so that The People will be armed and ready to
          fight if called upon to active militia duty. But that can only happen if
          the INDIVIDUAL people have their combat firearms and ammunition, ready
          to lock and load.

          “The 2nd amendment is about giving the states an absolute right to have
          their own armed militias which today has been transformed into the
          National Guard.”

          More crap. The National Guard is under the US Army. That’s why it can be
          ordered overseas to fight wars. The Militia cannot be, as clearly
          stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

          “The “right to keep and bear arms” means that the Constitution is
          guaranteeing the states not only the right to have their own militias or
          military, but the right to “keep” their own weapons of war.”

          Umm… it says THE PEOPLE’s Right to “keep” those weapons shall not be
          infringed. That’s not the State. It’s The People. That’s you and me.
          Why? So that the State cannot hold those weapons of war in armories,
          where they can be confiscated. That had been a previous practice,
          allowing the British military to seize control of the Militia armories,
          sparking the shooting part of the American Revolution.

          • bruner10

            The National Guard is those units of
            a state’s militia that have been federally recognized and so
            are also Reserve components of the US Army or Air Force.
            Because of Their militia heritage, the National Guard
            is the oldest part of the US military, tracing it’s origin
            back to 13 December 1636 when the Massachusetts militia
            organized into Regiments for the first time. Those original
            units are still active in the Guard today.
            The Guard is unique in that it has two missions. When
            not called into federal service, the commander-in-chief is
            the state Governor. he leverage our warfighting training to
            assist the state in times of emergency and for law
            enforcement. When federalized our commander-in-chief is the
            President and they operate just like any other unit of the
            Army or Air Force.
            They meet the same training standards as Active Duty.
            They train one weekend each month and two weeks each year.
            When the phrase ‘the people’ is used in the U.S. Constitution, it generally is meant to describe a collective body. For instance, “We the People of the United States,” speaks of the people as a whole. The majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller argues that the constitution distinguishes the use of ‘the people’ when it talks about powers versus rights.
            The court’s opinion found that when the constitution refers to the powers of ‘the people,’ it uses the phrase to mean collectively.
            For instance, the tenth amendment says powers not delegated to the federal government are given to the states or the people. In this case, the court argues ‘the people’ means Americans as a whole
            However, the court ruled that when the constitution uses ‘the people’ in the first, second, fourth, and ninth amendments, it speaks of people in the United States on an individual basis. Yet, it seems like the majority opinion had to make quite a leap to come to this conclusion.
            There is a difference between an “individual right” and a “collective right,” and it is the debate over what separates the two that is at the heart of the discussion over the Second Amendment.

          • Speak2Truth

            Look, it’s nice that you can cut and paste. I’m well aware that the National Guard is no longer the Militia mentioned in the Constitution – BECAUSE it is under the military authority. The militia can ONLY be called up by the Federal Government for three purposes described in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. None of them allows Militia to be sent outside the US borders. That would be unconstitutional.

            You: “When the phrase ‘the people’ is used in the U.S. Constitution, it generally is meant to describe a collective body.”

            And that includes EVERY single one of The People. There is no ‘right’ belonging to a collective body that does not belong to every one of its members.

            There is no ‘collective’ right that is prohibited to any one of the members of that collective body. If you are saying the collective body has a ‘right’ but its individual members can be deprived of that Right…. you’re talking crap.

            Are YOU one of ‘The People’?

            Do YOU have the Rights protected by the Constitution?

            Answer, please.

          • bruner10

            I am one of the people in my congressional district which I voted for my congressman to represent me along with 700k+ other people in the district. The court sends people to prison in my name. people vs John Doe. I have a collective right along with everyone else. I am one of the people. mentioned in the Constitution.
            I think it means that
            initially and every 2- 4- 6 years since the entire power of the us government flows
            back into the hands of the voter eligible citizens who then choose someone to
            wield this power with their authority in their name. This power is derived from
            the people, it’s the peoples constitution., i think they wrote it in order to
            form a more perfect union. to have a government that only governs by consent of
            the governed. there is a website that breaks down almost every line in the
            constitution. it try’s to convey the intent and meaning of the framers here’s the
            site http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_pre
            here’s a
            quote about we the people from the constitution site above
            We the People
            of the United States
            The Framers were an elite group – among the best
            and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were
            trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without
            the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the
            Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the
            notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down
            by a god or by a king – it was created by the people.
            end quote
            i also consider the constitution a living document, so we the people may
            have referred to the people when it was written .. but now we the people means
            us.. today.. living breathing people.. it’s our constitution as much or more
            than it was theirs.so we the people.. to me.. should always be taken in a
            current sense. yup Bohner works for me in theory.. reality is far far different
            though cause I would have fired him a long time ago…

          • Speak2Truth

            All that blather to avoid saying, “The 2nd Amendment refers to me specifically. I am one of The People whose Rights are explicitly protected.”

            Holy smokes.

            Since the link you posted does not work, I’ll help you understand a little bit more about YOUR individual Right protected by the 2nd Amendment.

            In Article 1, Section 8, the Federal and State governments were given certain responsibilities to train, arm and activate the Militia (you and me). However, some of the Founders were concerned that our own Government, if it went bad, would attempt “gun control” just as the British Government did. You know, things like keeping the Militia weapons in arsenals where they could be readily confiscated if The People ever tried to rebel against government gone bad.

            George Mason was among the Founders who cautioned that Government must be denied, in every sense possible, any authority to meddle with the Right of The People to keep their own combat weaponry, to ensure Government had absolutely zero power over it. This was even upheld in the Miller case, USSC, 1939.

            Mason explained the problem, the oversight in the Constitution, that was remedied by the 2nd Amendment:

            “When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, – who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” –George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

            See, if only Militia had a ‘right’ to arms, then Government would have the power to disarm and enslave The People. That’s why the 2nd Amendment is VERY clear on exactly who has the Right to combat arms. THE PEOPLE. You and me.

            No limited subset of The People is described. Every individual one of them is included.

            So, stop talking crap.

          • bruner10

            I really don’t need your help explaining anything, I have studied the issue of the 2nd amendment for over 35 years off and on when I first got interested in the subject. I have found nothing that doesn’t support my beliefs. I consider the source and facts. We are all entitled to our opinions but not construed as our own facts.
            The PATRIOT act infringes a number
            of personal liberties and widespread gun ownership has done
            nothing to prevent this. Therefore, has the right to own
            firearms really helped to protect personal liberties from
            the government? This is 2014, not 1780. Rebellion from the population might make it through the first week.
            The 2nd Amendment is used (and is misinterpreted) by many gun nuts, to justify having a home arsenal . . . the whole “well regulated militia” thing. I think you both agree that that clause is long outdated as we have a standing army now, the National Guard and state and local police even so we don’t need every Tom, Dick and Crazy armed to the teeth and waiting to blow away some intruder, or thinking they can someday overthrow an overreaching federal government. I say restrict “killing weapons”, hand gun and automatic weapons, to the police and military. The public can get their gun joneses satisfied if they want with “hunting/sporting weapons”, rifles and shotguns. I say let’s get it done quickly because even kids are getting slaughtered now. These incidents used to be years apart now they’re happening once or twice a week now (the Oregon mall one, the football player one, the Newton elementary school one and the Alabama hospital one). Until we do something we’ll all be holding our breath and dreading WHEN’S THE NEXT ONE GOING TO HAPPEN.

          • Speak2Truth

            You: ” I have studied the issue of the 2nd amendment for over 35 years”

            Then stop talking crap about it. You clearly do need help.

            “that clause is long outdated as we have a standing army ”

            You obviously have no clue what the Founders were up to. It is distrust of a standing army, distrust of politicians who would use their power to enslave The People (notice Mason’s explanation), that inspired them to ensure that The People would always have their own combat weaponry in their own homes.

            It was recent history, including Government forces trying to confiscate the Militia weaponry held in arsenal buildings and using its standing army to oppress The People that sparked the Revolution in the first place. Your ignorance or attempt at deception is laughable.

            The Right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the ONLY change the 2nd made to the Constitution.

            Are you one of The People?

            Do YOU have the Rights protected under the Constitution?

            Answer.

          • bruner10

            From a comment I posted a few weeks ago. Than is what I have believed for the past several years and have found nothing to change that belief. End of story. You have been brain washed by the NRA, Tea Baggers and right wing nut case publications that you only see what you want to . bottom line is [there is no 2nd Amendment right to own a gun and there never was].
            A MODERN DAY VERSION OF THE 2ND
            AMENDMENT
            [How it should read] A WELL REGULATED NATIONAL GUARD
            NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHTS OF ITS MEMBERS TO BEAR ARMS FROM THEIR
            GOVENOR SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
            “[The] governor
            [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say,
            of every man in it able
            to bear arms.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy,
            1811
            The
            Second
            Amendment of the United States
            Constitution reads: (“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.”) Such language has created
            considerable debate regarding the
            Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe
            that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”
            creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States.
            Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts
            legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least,
            the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively
            unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory
            language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to
            restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense.
            Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A
            collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not
            have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal
            legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without
            implicating a constitutional right.
            In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court
            considered the matter in United States v.
            Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective
            rights approach in this case, determining that
            Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate
            commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not
            suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation
            or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . .” The Court then explained that
            the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the
            military

          • Speak2Truth

            So, you are AFRAID to admit that YOU are one of THE PEOPLE referred to by the Constitution. LOL!!! Coward.

            Now you want to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate the Rights of The People? Oh, you ARE an enemy of the Constitution…

            You: “A WELL REGULATED NATIONAL GUARD NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHTS OF ITS MEMBERS TO BEAR ARMS FROM THEIR GOVENOR SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. ” (clearly, you want it to say something different in order to change the meaning)

            Reality: The Founders had every opportunity to limit the privilege of owning Arms to only active Militia members. They didn’t. The Right belongs to all of The People, just as it says. Why? Because ALL people share the same Rights. (Read the Declaration of Independence for a refresher on that).

            As it really says, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

            Remember WHY the 2nd was written? To ensure that if the Militia are not put into active use, The People still retain their individual Right to arms.

            The 2nd Amendment does not grant any Rights. Government has no power to do so. They are innate. As was reinforced by the Miller case: “The Second Amendment does not confer upon the people the right to keep and bear arms; it is one of the provisions of the Constitution which, recognizing the prior existence of a certain right, declares that it shall not be infringed by Congress. Thus the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution and therefore is not dependant upon that instrument for its source.

            As it says, it only prohibits Government from interfering with the Right of The People (you and me) to keep and bear arms (combat weaponry).

            More from the Miller case:

            Miller’s attorney did not appear before the Supreme Court to show that the short-barreled shotgun is useful for combat, thereby confirming it as ‘arms’ referred to in the Constitution. Miller was dead by that time. The court asserted that…

            “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of
            a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at
            this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
            efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
            Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
            Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part
            of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to
            the common defense.”

            Notice, “In the absence of any evidence” was the problem. Yet, the short barrel shotgun was, in fact, used in combat in warfare. If the evidence had been presented, then the court COULD confirm it part of the ordinary military equipment and Miller’s ownership therefore immune from any government limitations, taxes, permit requirements, etc.

            I ask again, because you are a COWARD…

            Are YOU one of The People?

            Do YOU have the Rights protected by the Constitution?

          • bruner10

            All America’s are covered under the constitution we are all the people mentioned. Some times as a collective right and sometime as an individual right. So what’s your point. You don’t make a sensible argument, you are still living in the late 1770’s. I only pointed out what the 2nd amendment would look like if it was written today
            The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
            I think that people tend to think
            in
            the context of their own times. When the constitution was
            amended people were basing the amendments on what was
            happening then… the future was uncertain. All they had
            were the events of their time, and during that time a
            militia was critical to the freedom for which they were
            fighting. I know that this is going to generate a lot of
            controversy, but with all respect… a lot of the events
            that were taking place during the 1770s no longer are
            taking
            place (the American Revolution), England is a friend of
            the
            United States and we aren’t at war for our independence.
            You have no reason to own or carry an ICBM
            unless you plan on breaking the law. It’s the same reason
            you can’t buy porn in a day care center or buy whiskey from
            the drive thru at McDonald’s.
            First, you can’t afford it. Nuclear weapons are
            ridiculously expensive to develop, construct, and maintain.
            You can’t even rent one for less than billions of dollars.
            So, you’re question has no basis in reality. (Even if you
            are a multi-billionaire, you aren’t dumb enough to waste it
            on nuclear weapons just for self-defense.)
            Second, the federal government has the explicit
            responsibility for national defense in the U.S.
            constitution. Nuclear weapons are solely for national
            defense. Therefore, the responsibility for nuclear weapons
            lies with the feds, not with the people.

          • Speak2Truth

            “All America’s are covered under the constitution we are all the people
            mentioned.”

            So far, so good. We ALL, individually, are The People mentioned in the Constitution, who have the Rights protected by it.

            “Some times as a collective right and sometime as an
            individual right.”

            Talking crap again.

            Name ONE Right protected by the Constitution that does not belong to YOU, the individual, just to some imaginary ‘collective’ that does NOT include you.

            Stop talking crap.

            “during that time a militia was critical to the freedom for which they were fighting”

            When you see Government no longer obeying the Constitution, the Militia have a Constitutional role that applies, as described in Article 1, Section 8. Can you find it?

            When police flee from violent, destructive ‘protesters’, the Militia have a Constitutional role, also in Article 1, Section 8.

            When invaders march into our country across its undefended borders, Militia have a Constitutional role, describe in Article 1, Section 8.

            These are all RIGHT NOW, and TODAY.

            But it is not the ‘militia’ whose arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment. That was already dealt with in Article 1, Section 8.

            The ONLY change the 2nd made was to ensure YOU, the individual Person, are completely immune from any government interference with your Right to keep and bear those combat weapons. That Right was SEPARATED FROM militia duty by the 2nd Amendment. It is THE PEOPLE who have that Right, meaning YOU and ME, just in case we ever need to act as Militia.

            Why was the 2nd written? To prevent the Government from disarming and enslaving The People (you and me). Just like George Mason said.

            So stop talking crap.

          • bruner10

            The crap you are spreading sounds a lot like the NRA
            A major concern of the
            various
            delegates during the constitutional
            debates over the
            Constitution and the
            Second Amendment to the Constitution
            revolved around the issue of transferring militia power
            held
            by the States’ (under the existing
            Articles of
            Confederation), to Federal
            control. Article 1 section 8 of
            the
            constitution. Congress shall have the power, to provide
            for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
            Militia, and
            for governing such Part of
            them as may be employed in the
            Service of
            the United States, reserving to the States
            respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
            Authority of training the Militia according to
            the
            discipline prescribed by Congress;
            Article 1 section 2 of
            the constitution.
            The President shall be Commander in Chief
            of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
            Militia of the several States, when called
            into the actual
            Service of the United
            States; he may require the Opinion, in
            writing, of the principal
            Officer in each
            of the executive Departments, upon any
            Subject relating to the Duties of their respective
            Offices,
            and he shall have Power to grant
            Reprieves and Pardons for
            Offences against
            the United States, except in Cases of
            Impeachment.
            A major concern of the various
            delegates during the constitutional debates
            over the
            Constitution and the Second
            Amendment to the Constitution
            revolved
            around the issue of transferring militia power held
            by the States’ (under the existing
            Articles of
            Confederation), to Federal
            control. Article 1 section 8 of
            the
            constitution. Congress shall have the power, to provide
            for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
            Militia, and
            for governing such Part of
            them as may be employed in the
            Service of
            the United States, reserving to the States
            respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
            Authority of training the Militia according to
            the
            discipline prescribed by Congress;
            Article 1 section 2 of
            the constitution.
            The President shall be Commander in Chief
            of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
            Militia of the several States, when called
            into the actual
            Service of the United
            States; he may require the Opinion, in
            writing, of the principal
            Officer in each
            of the executive Departments, upon any
            Subject relating to the Duties of their respective
            Offices,
            and he shall have Power to grant
            Reprieves and Pardons for
            Offences against
            the United States, except in Cases of
            Impeachment.
            When the phrase
            ‘the people’ is used in the U.S. Constitution, it
            generally is meant to describe a collective body. For
            instance, “We the People of the United States,” speaks
            of the people as a whole. The majority opinion in District
            of Columbia v. Heller argues that the constitution
            distinguishes the use of ‘the people’ when it talks
            about powers versus rights.
            The court’s
            opinion found that when the constitution refers to the
            powers of ‘the people,’ it uses the phrase to mean
            collectively.
            For instance, the tenth
            amendment says powers not delegated to the federal
            government are given to the states or the people. In this
            case, the court argues ‘the people’ means Americans as a
            whole
            However, the court ruled that when the
            constitution uses ‘the people’ in the first, second,
            fourth, and ninth amendments, it speaks of people in the
            United States on an individual basis. Yet, it seems like the
            majority opinion had to make quite a leap to come to this
            conclusion.
            There is a difference between an
            “individual right” and a “collective right,” and it
            is the debate over what separates the two that is at the
            heart of the discussion over the Second Amendment.

          • Speak2Truth

            So, you CANNOT name one single Right in the Constitution that belongs to some sort of group but not the individual person. Got it.

            You: “When the phrase ‘the people’ is used in the U.S. Constitution, it generally is meant to describe a collective body.”

            More crap. When a Right of The People is protected, it belongs to EVERY INDIVIDUAL person. Otherwise, it would belong to nobody.

            The Constitution uses “the people” to talk about issues other than Rights, as well. For example, ‘powers’ as mentioned in the 10th is NOT about Rights. Your comprehension level is lacking. But the ninth does in fact touch on the issue of Rights.

            When you gain some mature reading comprehension, the words in that document will start to make some sense to you.

            And when you point out just one Right protected by the Constitution that does NOT belong to the individual person, you won’t be full of crap.

          • bruner10

            I thought I answered the post about collective and individual rights. The crap you are spreading sounds a lot like the NRA
            A major concern of the
            various
            delegates during the constitutional
            debates over the
            Constitution and the
            Second Amendment to the Constitution
            revolved around the issue of transferring militia power
            held
            by the States’ (under the existing
            Articles of
            Confederation), to Federal
            control. Article 1 section 8 of
            the
            constitution. Congress shall have the power, to provide
            for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
            Militia, and
            for governing such Part of
            them as may be employed in the
            Service of
            the United States, reserving to the States
            respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
            Authority of training the Militia according to
            the
            discipline prescribed by Congress;
            Article 1 section 2 of
            the constitution.
            The President shall be Commander in Chief
            of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
            Militia of the several States, when called
            into the actual
            Service of the United
            States; he may require the Opinion, in
            writing, of the principal
            Officer in each
            of the executive Departments, upon any
            Subject relating to the Duties of their respective
            Offices,
            and he shall have Power to grant
            Reprieves and Pardons for
            Offences against
            the United States, except in Cases of
            Impeachment.
            A major concern of the various
            delegates during the constitutional debates
            over the
            Constitution and the Second
            Amendment to the Constitution
            revolved
            around the issue of transferring militia power held
            by the States’ (under the existing
            Articles of
            Confederation), to Federal
            control. Article 1 section 8 of
            the
            constitution. Congress shall have the power, to provide
            for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
            Militia, and
            for governing such Part of
            them as may be employed in the
            Service of
            the United States, reserving to the States
            respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
            Authority of training the Militia according to
            the
            discipline prescribed by Congress;
            Article 1 section 2 of
            the constitution.
            The President shall be Commander in Chief
            of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
            Militia of the several States, when called
            into the actual
            Service of the United
            States; he may require the Opinion, in
            writing, of the principal
            Officer in each
            of the executive Departments, upon any
            Subject relating to the Duties of their respective
            Offices,
            and he shall have Power to grant
            Reprieves and Pardons for
            Offences against
            the United States, except in Cases of
            Impeachment.
            When the phrase
            ‘the people’ is used in the U.S. Constitution, it
            generally is meant to describe a collective body. For
            instance, “We the People of the United States,” speaks
            of the people as a whole. The majority opinion in District
            of Columbia v. Heller argues that the constitution
            distinguishes the use of ‘the people’ when it talks
            about powers versus rights.
            The court’s
            opinion found that when the constitution refers to the
            powers of ‘the people,’ it uses the phrase to mean
            collectively.
            For instance, the tenth
            amendment says powers not delegated to the federal
            government are given to the states or the people. In this
            case, the court argues ‘the people’ means Americans as a
            whole
            However, the court ruled that when the
            constitution uses ‘the people’ in the first, second,
            fourth, and ninth amendments, it speaks of people in the
            United States on an individual basis. Yet, it seems like the
            majority opinion had to make quite a leap to come to this
            conclusion.
            There is a difference between an
            “individual right” and a “collective right,” and it
            is the debate over what separates the two that is at the
            heart of the discussion over the Second Amendment.

          • Speak2Truth

            Thank you for confirming that the NRA and the US Supreme Court agree with me regarding Individual Rights. I appreciate that acknowledgement.

            Regarding allowing the Federal Government a role in commanding Militia, that has NOTHING TO DO with the matter of Individual Rights. That has NOTHING TO DO with the 2nd Amendment. It is all about the militia clauses in Article 1, Section 8.

            So stop talking crap.

            The 2nd Amendment made only one change to the US Constitution. It absolutely prohibited Government from infringing upon the Right of The People (you and me) to keep and bear those combat weapons you mentioned a while back.

            As George Mason explained it, this was to prevent a scheme by Government that would involve making excuses to take from The People their combat weaponry and thus enslave them:

            “When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, – who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” –George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

            So, the 2nd Amendment was to SEPARATE the individual Right to keep and bear arms from any connection to Militia service. It was to ensure that The People would always be armed, so that they could act as Militia if government were to go bad, among other likely crises.

            You: ” the court ruled that when the constitution uses ‘the people’ in the first, second, fourth, and ninth amendments, it speaks of people in the United States on an individual basis”

            And that is correct. Because protecting Rights means there must be an individual person whose Rights might be threatened. Only a person can have Rights, after all.

          • bruner10

            You think you have all the answers. I believe the info you put out is a bunch of crap. There is just as many that agree with me as do with you. The lobbying power of the NRA is all that keeps your position going. How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
            The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.
            “A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
            Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.
            Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.
            So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.
            The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored.
            The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.
            “Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.
            On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.
            There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
            Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
            Cue the National Rifle Association. We all know of the organization’s considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, “The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.” Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure.
            What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.
            The NRA was founded by a group of Union officers after the Civil War who, perturbed by their troops’ poor marksmanship, wanted a way to sponsor shooting training and competitions. The group testified in support of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers. When a lawmaker asked whether the proposal violated the Constitution, the NRA witness responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” The group lobbied quietly against the most stringent regulations, but its principal focus was hunting and sportsmanship: bagging deer, not blocking laws. In the late 1950s, it opened a new headquarters to house its hundreds of employees. Metal letters on the facade spelled out its purpose: firearms safety education, marksmanship training, shooting for recreation.

          • Speak2Truth

            You: ” I believe the info you put out is a bunch of crap.”

            Of course, because you can’t read or comprehend what you’re reading.

            THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

            Yet you claim this doesn’t actually mean individual persons. That’s quite a leap.

            The ONLY opinion on the matter that really counts is that of the people who wrote the Constitution. Anyone who disagrees with them is… wrong. You can quote all the WRONG opinions you like. That won’t change the clear meaning of the words in the 2nd.

            Can you find any evidence, from the authors of the Constitution, that YOU are not one of The People whose Rights are protected by the Constitution?

            “Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that
            the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until
            2008”

            YOU LIE

            Even the Miller case confirmed that a weapon shown to have combat usefulness is protected under the 2nd Amendment for INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP free from any and all government infringement.

            Stop talking crap and stop lying.

          • bruner10

            You are a lying piece of crap and ignorant as well . I am not going to waste anymore time on you , you wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked you in the face. You seem to be hung up on the word people. There is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was. That’s the bottom line. Your brain has been eat up by the NRA and the right wing nut cases.

          • Speak2Truth

            I admit it, I’m hung up on what the Constitution actually says and means. That’s what the guys who wrote it intended.

            You’re correct to say that there is no 2nd Amendment right to own a gun. That Right exists without the 2nd Amendment.

            The 2nd Amendment simply prohibits government from infringing upon that Right.

            That’s exactly what it says.

            Thank you for finally understanding.

          • Speak2Truth

            “You have no reason to own or carry an ICBM”

            Reductio ad absurdum. Why do you mention an ICBM? Because it has NO RELEVANCE to our discussion. It is NOT the ‘arms’ mentioned in the Constitution.

            So, stop talking crap.

          • bruner10

            In the 1770’s they had muskets and cannons. That was pretty much their arms which the 2nd amendment refers to [arms] Today arms include drones, tanks jets, missals and hundreds of other military arms. as the 2nd been amended to exclude these arms? No, so under your scenario why couldn’t a person have the right to posses these as well. Thus the 2nd is a military document not an individual ownership document. you and the NRA are the ones talking crap.

          • Speak2Truth

            YOU brought up ICBMs. Idiot. Those are only suitable for war against other nations. We do NOT use them on OUR OWN SOIL.

            Look in the Constitution. What are the functions of the Militia when called to action?

            What arms are, today, suitable for that sort of combat?

            Those ARE the arms referred to by the 2nd Amendment. As the Miller Supreme Court reaffirmed, if the weapon can be shown to be combat useful, part of regular soldier’s armaments, for Militia purposes, it is covered by the 2nd Amendment.

            The 2nd Amendment says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

            In other words, YOUR Right to those combat weapons is protected. It is about YOUR ownership of those weapons. Government is PROHIBITED from interfering, in any way, just like it says.

            So stop talking crap.

            And you claimed there is some sort of ‘collective’ right in the Constitution that excludes the individual. PROVE IT. Or stop talking crap.

          • bruner10

            what didn’t you understand about the reply, The crap you are spreading sounds a lot like the NRA
            In the 1770’s they had muskets and cannons. That was pretty much their arms which the 2nd amendment refers to [arms] Today arms include drones, tanks jets, missals and hundreds of other military arms. as the 2nd been amended to exclude these arms? No, so under your scenario why couldn’t a person have the right to posses these as well. Thus the 2nd is a military document not an individual ownership document. you and the NRA are the ones talking crap.

      • John W Tobin

        You DO have that Right. And in some communities that Right IS being recognized by local government. Or should I say, RE-recognized.

      • Spiritof America

        They will come in volume. Connect with like minded folks . God Bless

    • gary

      that’s easy ,republicans think if they try to impeach him they will shut the government down and lose the next presidential election ,and on top of that ,they might be called racists and the democrat lies might stick ,the senate trial might not go their way then they would have an insane mad man in the white house and all hell breaking loose as the country descends into anarchy ,as the patriots stand to put down the corruption and wickedness of the current batch of liberal traitors ,and the us tears itself apart at the seams

      • olf

        Well satan and his smear and character assignation tactic does work for a short period of time, but his time is coming to an end. Sin is fun for a season, but it always coming crashing down sooner or later. Including obarri and his ferry / merry minions. God Bless true Americans. Amen

        • bruner10

          What is a true American, someone who agrees with you.

          • olf

            A true American is a person lives by principles of truth, brotherly love, justice, rule of law, courageous, honest, fair, integrity, and will stand and helping their neighbor as a friend. Live by “The Golden Rule” and “The 10 commandments” until death.

          • bruner10

            Sounds like Mother Teresa not any Tea Bagger.

          • olf

            What would you prefer, mother Teresa (honorable person) or obarri the liar.

          • bruner10

            Either one of those two honorable persons would be just fine. You and your cohorts spread falsehoods to make him sound as not credible.

      • luvzforplay

        I agree in part , but we do have to do something , I figured that at least impeachment would get rid of Obamacare and a lot of other half assed things this illegal alien has tried to enact . If they let him finish this term then they will have to spend a ton of money and time trying to unravle all the haywire problems that the thing has , the death panels , My buddy’s dad needs a new liver and has a way to pay for it , he was told because of Obama’s mandates they could not do the surgery in the US , they were only allowed to keep him comfortable till he passes. As far as racism goes they will always bring that up in spite of the fact that American industry had to hire unqualified people for years now in order to pay them back for something that happened 200 years ago . There own people were selling them to the Dutch traders to come to America. But I also think they are tired of his lies , because he hasn’t been kind to them either other then trying to use them as pawns to initiate Martial Law in certain areas ! They would like to see him gone Too !

        • charles17121

          luvzforplay , Once again if must be said the fraud and usurper barack hussein obama can NOT be impeached because he is NOT a LEGAL sitting US President . The removal of this fraud and usurper barack hussein obama must come under US constitutional law Article ll Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution .

        • gary

          perhaps some blacks might like to see him gone but if they are getting something from the feds with out working for it I think they might prefer to get the fed check and sell drugs to cover the Cadillac payment ,that is if they have no string of ho’s on the line ,oh by the way in a point of interest the word in the book of revelation that was translated as sorceries is in ancient Greek pharmacus

    • elkhunt

      because no one has the balls to confront obummer on it and prove he did something against the law—-that’s why

    • JACK3889

      They fear to oust him now for being illegal to hold the WH would nullify all done, and rightfully so, the past six years and would leave the entire executive branch vacant putting out all who went in with him including Biden. Had he been properly vetted he could never have been on the ballots of any state. Congress and the Fed. Election Board created the problem so let’s see how they attempt to rectify the problem. There is no precedent to go by.

    • Clay Fitzgerald

      I want to see Obama and Michelle disappear along with Holder and his replacement Lynch, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Rangel, Franken, Murray, any of old Joe Kennedy’s spawn through the latest generation, Gore, Biden and others too many to include here.

      • luvzforplay

        Youcan say that again brother !! they keep saying they don’t want to impeach Obama , I don’t understand the longer he is in office the worse things are going to get , besides if he is impeached a lot of the half assed things including Obama Care will be declared nol en void and we can give the money back to SS and the VA witch where he stole it from !

  • Greg McCulloch

    impeach this bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Vernon Jackson

    actually I’M shocked the cop’s didn’t try and blow him (the grandfather) away :-/

  • ihatelibs

    This aint new . Heard a month or two ago

  • ‘Ol Woodenshoe

    Perfect Sir! You were very lucky and kept your wits about you and reacted just about perfectly I’d say You proceeded in a calm and graud

  • luvzforplay

    We all knw there a lot more to this whole thing , It was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt and not Hawaii admits they had no birth certificates on him , that’s probably why Ms. Fuddy their chief or records had to die in a plane “crash” that didn’t ever shake anyone else up ! Also it is widely known that he is using the Social Security number of a man who died about 90 years ago and was issued to a person in a state where Obama never lived ! the guy is a phony and don’t have to be impeached , he like anyone else could be arrested on several counts of Treason not to mention other federal crimes which anyone of us would face for using a fake SSN !! There is a lot of money changing hands to keep this clown in office , I am sure the truth will come out !!

  • luvzforplay

    Well I sure wish our elected officials would follow the oath they took while entering office and protect our country from enemy’s foreign and domestic. Seems like the only people willing to take this oath seriously are the American servicemen who put their life on the line everyday and are ineligible to any of the benefits that are apparently wasted on our elected officials who will be being paid for the rest of their lives for doing as little as they can to earn the pay they get.. You can’t run for office unless you have money and agree to take money to get lobbyists wishes granted , If you are honest like Ron Paul , you can’t get elected because you can’t be corrupted . We the people should not have let it get this bad , but it is our Country and we love it so it is up to us to see that it is corrected for the sake of our children !

  • Tired Old Soldier

    I think That Dam Musselm sitting in the President Office is trying to get things so upset that he can declare Marshal Law and then we could not have a Election in 2016 and he can stay as long as he likes, A Guy name Hitler did that, People did not understand what was going on untill it was to late,I am ready if we can figure out how to start, I have the Experience 20 years in this country Uniform as a Combat Veteran in Viet-Nam 1965-1966 and 1969 to 1970 I have a 357 Mag bolt action that will hold 10 round and I can shoot and don’t mind it. I love this Flag and this country, Someone please lead us.

  • Sam

    Somewhere in all this mess is a “win-win”! I grew up in a family full of lawmen – including two sons. I know how to use my weapons, i know the laws that protect me, I have the intelligence to see and “feel” the intent of an individual’s aggressiveness. The liberals in media, Washington and Hollywood would like to sell us a box full of nonsense ( mild words to others I could use!) about my rights as a legal citizen to bear arms and protect myself , my family and my neighbors. Take away the knives, baseball bats and other items used to intimidate, kill or maim – then you can talk about deadly weapons to me! Of course, you will have to have a working brain first!

  • bruner10

    THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND GUN
    CONTROL / OWNERSHIP

    THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN
    AND THERE NEVER WAS. the supreme court republicans were
    simply wrong. you know any vote in the court or congress
    that is partisan is just wrong. it was simply political
    thought not intelligent or informed thought
    Subject: THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND
    THERE NEVER WAS
    No Virginia There is No Constitutional Right to Own a Gun[
    MAYBE THE FACTS WILL HELP YOU IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE
    FACTS] THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND
    THERE NEVER WAS. BY
    MARC RUBIN
    Published April 23, 2010 by:
    Marc Rubin
    There was a demonstration in Virginia over the weekend
    consisting of gun owners demonstrating for what or against
    what no one really knew and maybe they didn’t either.
    But it probably had to do with a second amendment
    right for them to own guns that doesn’t exist. And never
    did.
    If there is one thing both conservatives, many Democrats and
    most journalists have in common its their constitutional
    ignorance of the second amendment and their false belief
    that the second amendment has anything to do with an
    individual’s right to own a gun.
    It doesn’t and it never did.
    But to listen to Obama, and many Democrats and liberals like
    Ed Schultz the other night on MSNBC, along with
    conservatives, they assume they know what the amendment
    means, assume it gives individuals the
    right to own guns, and as is the case with so many mistaken
    assumptions made in America, they are all wrong.
    How do we know? Let us count the ways. First, there has
    never been one single Supreme Court ruling that has held the
    Second Amendment gives people the right to own guns (
    “Heller”, which many advocates like to quote,
    actually skirted the entire issue and focused instead on the
    status of the District of Columbia as not being a state and
    ducked on the whole question of the second amendment and
    states rights). You would think with all the controversy
    surrounding guns that somewhere along the line there would
    have been a case or a challenge where the Supreme Court
    addressed the issue, but there has never been an affirmation
    of the Second Amendment applying to individuals. Ever.
    “Guns in America” clearly points this out when it
    says:
    The public debate over the meaning of those words ( the
    Second Amendment) has raged for decades, but the U.S.
    Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the Second Amendment
    since 1939, in a case called U.S. v. Miller. The 25
    paragraphs of that unanimous ruling have been regarded by
    lower federal courts as a definitive decision that the
    Second Amendment was designed to preserve state militias,
    not to give individuals an absolute right to keep and bear
    arms. ”
    ——————————————————————————–
    The reality of this is that any state can pass any gun law
    they wish, banning, restricting, taxing, guns ammo,
    anything, and they do. That is irrefutable. Its there for
    all to see. The 2nd amendment does not prevent any state
    from passing any gun laws they wish. That is irrefutable
    because these laws are on the books
    THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER
    WAS [WHAT DID JEFFERSON SAY 1801-1808]
    ——————————————————————————–
    Taking On Gun Control
    “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility
    against every
    form of tyranny over the mind of man.” –Thomas
    Jefferson
    A Well-Organized and Armed Militia
    “For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a
    well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It
    is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of
    Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask
    ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at
    every point of our territories exposed to invasion…
    Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of
    preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests
    which they so deeply feel in their own and their
    country’s security will present this as among the most
    important objects of their deliberation.”
    –Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482
    “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing
    army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all
    times important.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1803.
    “It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we
    have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern
    regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of
    obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case
    with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free
    State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper
    hirelings.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
    “A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace
    and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve
    them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our
    Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to
    shape its administration.”
    –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
    “[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of
    the militia of the State, that
    is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.”
    –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
    “Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point
    in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us,
    the only force which can be ready at every point and
    competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring
    citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from
    the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the
    invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first
    attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the
    defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve
    them.”
    –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
    THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER
    WAS
    ——————————————————————————–

    • donaldpeterson

      You put way too much faith in this Marc Rubin. The Supreme Court has passed decisions since the one mentioned that uphold the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. You need to use more that one so called authority.

      • Clay Fitzgerald

        bruner10 is a more than a couple of bricks short of a full load. His lengthy tirades are a lot of words placed in an order such that it renders everything he posts totally meaningless. It’s nothing more than gibberish and thus is incomprehensible.

        • donaldpeterson

          I hear that!

      • bruner10

        Of all the research I have done. Marc Rubin is the foremost authority on the subject that I have found. Their last decisions that they have brought down Is McDONALD which dealt with Chicago and HELLER which dealt with D.C.. Legal scholars believe Heller only pertains to DC because DC is not a state and would not apply to a state, plus the decision was 5-4. The amendment is only one sentence and doesn’t have 2 meanings. Where else would the Governor of the state get their authority to possess an armed militia.

        • donaldpeterson

          District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

          • bruner10

            Many legal scholars believe they were wrong and that another case will reverse the decision. What ff it was one justice the other way, what would you be saying.

          • donaldpeterson

            No worry, it wasn’t.

          • bruner10

            I am not an attorney , but I probably have spent 50 times more time then the SCOTUS did researching the 2nd Amendment. I started in the 1980’s when you had to search threw mountain’s of law books. The last time the Supreme Court looked at the 2nd amendment was in the 1940’s in the McDonald case where nothing was decided on the core issue. I simply believe they were wrong on Heller and the next time its challenged it will be a different ruling.

        • Clay Fitzgerald

          That may be YOUR opinion, but opinions are like assholes… everyone has one.

  • bruner10

    A MODERN DAY VERSION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT A WELL REGULATED NATIONAL GUARD NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHTS OF ITS MEMBERS TO BEAR ARMS FROM THEIR GOVENOR SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
    “[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811
    The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: (“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.”) Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
    In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . .” The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military

  • doug

    If obamaaa succeeds at getting our guns, and we all know the liberals will be right behind him doing all they can to destroy the 2nd amendment, we are finished as a nation, America will be a 4th or 5th rated nation. obammaaa and his minions have been doing all they can from destroying our military to dividing us as a nation and causing havoc in our cities to bring in marital law. Watch out America all of his administration are assigned to search and destroy all that is good about America, and a lot has to be blamed on the liberal news media who have taken sides with this king want-a-be.
    He and all of his administration must be fired, tried in a court of law and sent to prison.

  • Valor

    Contrary to what this Bruner10 has to say, the framers of the 2nd Amendment made it clear the primary purpose of that listed liberty was as a last defense against the tyranny of government. Something all forms of government are prone to, including the one they gave us. Which is why would be tyrants like Obama and big government politicians want so much to destroy that right. It is a direct threat to their agenda. Bruner10 conveniently leaves out the millions of defenseless people murdered by governments in just the past century. To imagine an Obama dictatorship would be more benevolent is wishful thinking. Gun control laws are not and never have been about reduction of crime or enhancement of public safety. They have always been and still are about the subjugation of a segment of society, such as blacks after the Civil War, or society as a whole. Those that think the natural evils of government oppression can’t happen here are living in a fantasy world. The day is fast approaching that each individual American is going to have to decide between living on his or her knees to a totalitarian government, or die if need be as a free man or woman. I made my choice years ago when I saw where America is headed.

    • Clay Fitzgerald

      You, sir, are a true and patriotic American.
      The worst tyrannies of the 20th century existed for much longer than Nazi Germany, the USSR where Stalin alone was responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million civilian deaths and China under communist rule where Mao was responsible for more than 30 million deaths. The sum total of non combat related civilian deaths exceeds those attributed to the Nazis by a factor of five. The common thread though, is that the governments of those nations makes non-military and non-law enforcement possession of firearms arduous if not impossible.

    • bruner10

      I am intensely annoyed by the occasional refrain by the pro-gun side that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the American populace from a government-imposed tyranny. This is complete crap, everyone knows it, and yet it’s still brought up sometimes.
      Maybe in the day of muskets and cavalry charges this was true (maybe). But it’s obviously absurd to claim that now. Small-caliber handguns cannot compete with a modern military force in any way. A military force can field tanks, long-range artillery, attack helicopters, and unmanned drones. And (aside from the drones) that’s all ancient technology. To actually resist a military incursion the 2nd Amendment would have to allow private citizens to own heavy ordnance and high-explosives at the minimum. Every successful modern resistance has been supplied and/or supported by a foreign nation.
      No one believes that the 2nd Amendment SHOULD allow those things. So it’s not about stopping a domestic tyranny. Stop pretending it is.

  • Greg U.S.N. (Ret)

    Like the leader once said;”When they pry my cold dead fingers”

  • WeaselClubber

    Watching ‘bruner10’ self-immolate on a public forum….PRICELESS!

  • JacktheFAC

    My question is, “Why didn’t the gun owners in Furgeson protect themselves and their property and businesses instead of just standing there and letting these street animals burn them out?” If a little bit of guts had been used by the citizens, these lawless animals would have learned a lesson that Americans once knew about harming other people’s property. Now American people have been turned into American sheeple.