Comments on: Second Amendment means what it says

By: It is way past by bedtime

It is way past by bedtime — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:02:28 +0000

SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion…..I myself am a member of CONTROL because I am opposed to KAOS, but first I need to get smart, this is the part I have trouble with, missed it by this much.

By: G-Man

G-Man — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:57:50 +0000

I DO.(.whoops said that once too many times..)Love my wife..and I’ve gotten a lot closer to my Mother in Law in the years since she’s been dead…

By: G-Man

G-Man — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:48:18 +0000

That about says it…what the hell are we paying SCOTUS for?..and speaking of that are the “plus size” robes that Kegger Kagan And Sotomaier have to wear paid for by the tax payers?…If so may I suggest that a generic car cover would work as well…I’m sure they come in black.

By: D.B.

D.B. — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 05:12:12 +0000

“Let me break down the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated (provisioned or armed) militia (anyone over 18 and under 45 unless you want to if you are older), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (you and I) to keep (own) and bear (keep on your person) arms (it doesn’t say hunting rifles or shotguns only) shall not be infringed (not to be modified).”

I would tend to agree with most of that… but the last two aren’t entirely correct.
No, it doesn’t say hunting rifles or shotguns only… in fact, it doesn’t specifically mention ‘firearms’ of any type. It says ‘arms’, which by definition are any weapon an individual uses in his defense that can be carried on his person… literally by his own arms… where the meaning is derived from.
Also, ‘infringed’ means “to invalidate or actively break the terms of”… not that something cannot be modified. Article 5 of the Constitution dictates how Amendments can be added, which can and do modify and/or clarify the original document and its existing amendments.

By: BTW

BTW — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:25:10 +0000

I don’t spect I will B so lucky. U R So EVIL

By: U know U....

U know U.... — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:22:39 +0000

Love your wife and probably her Mommy too so there you slay me.

By: G-man

G-man — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:19:03 +0000

Who’s the arbiter of which well meaning folks don’t get the guns??..As a responsible gun owner with legal training I know that the. Second I pull that trigger my live is changed..by degrees..but changed….I would do just about anything to avoid shooting someone…even in my home..every event is different..I need my options..btw.Gabby was one lucky lady..

By: G-Man

G-Man — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:13:02 +0000

No real standard..first Generation GLOCK 17 could hold 17rds…James Bond’s Walther PPK?..Std clip maybe 7rds..and he was fighting SPECTRE…Real world says..In this Republic the people have a right to self defense…you bring up Sandy,Columbine,Aurora,…I say..thanks for proving my point…

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:45:09 +0000

No one should divulge whether he owns a gun or not, publicly, don’t you agree? About the only chance unarmed people have to stop a shooter is when he pauses to reload, and it helps the armed defender too. Maybe it wouldn’t have made any difference at Sandy Hook, but it might have made a big difference in an incident like the Congresswoman Giffords shooting in Arizona. I still like 6-round mags as the limit, but you said you couldn’t accept less than 10. How about 8? What’s the standard for a 45 or 9mm semi handgun?

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:33:17 +0000

G-Man: I kept up with the CE for a long time, but eventually decided to go inactive with my bar membership to save money. Even so, I probably got the CE credits I needed by attending seminars related to my other work; I just never had to apply them.

By: CD Brooks

CD Brooks — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 15:30:22 +0000

We can argue and cite every law on the books but in the end, it s clearly an individual choice as to how one uses their weapons. Guns will always be available through many channels and bad people will always have them. The challenge to remove the criminal element is simply impossible. The long lines at gun shows and gun stores should be evidence enough that folks want to have guns and are willing to pay the price both in terms of time and money. On the news last night, they showed people lining up as early as four hours before the stores/events opened. Gun sales are off the hook and that is to be expected, but the hysteria surrounding it is based on misinformation and media hype. Again, the media drives everything and no longer recognizes the division between fact and fiction. I hope that if you are one of those anxious buyers, you learn the awesome task of responsible gun ownership and take some shooting lessons. The worst thing in the world is having kids get a hold of your guns. The second worst thing is attempting to defend yourself and realizing you cannot. Some very good folks mean well, but simply should not have a gun, period.

By: G-Man

G-Man — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 11:57:54 +0000

Correct type RLW…

By: G-Man

G-Man — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 11:36:46 +0000

Easy Perry Mason..you’re starting to lose me..how in the world do I know if the Sandy Shooter wanted to kill 5 or 50..from what I read he kept shooting..till he heard the sirens..maybe we should have sirens in every school…now as for 10 shot mags..and would lives be saved..NO NO NO..I gotta say..do you even have a gun?…what stops a nut from carry a vest full of 10 shot Mags..he’s locking the door and it’s 2nd graders!!!..The only life saved..was that kid that hid under the bodies..I’m surprised that child hasn’t been abused in the media but we mercifully haven’t..no RLK no gun laws,no controls,regs,will stop gun violence..why?..CAUSE THE CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS…don’t you want one too?

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 06:20:08 +0000

If the Sandy Hook nutcase could only get his hands on 10-round magazines, don’t you think some lives would have been saved? Do you think he cared whether he killed 5 or 50 as long as he went out with a bang or satisfied whatever his insane motivaton was?

By: G-Man

G-Man — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:28:59 +0000

@RLW Esq….NO TANKS?…No Thanks!!!

By: Just saying...

Just saying... — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:24:42 +0000

You are brilliant when not being acid.

By: G-Man

G-Man — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:06:26 +0000

Fair enough..I got the Paralegal Cert. Just to understand some things..knowledge is power…thanks to my paralegal studies and the help of a great Estate Atty..My wife avoided losing 1/3 of her inheritance…So you don’t practice?..You keep up w/ the CE?

By: G-Man

G-Man — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:41:26 +0000

It’s just running laps..nothing short of mass confiscation will prevent someone bent on doing harm from using a gun..and not even that..hypothetical..all guns are gone..Mr Nutcase uses fire,acid,a bomb, a knife.a bat..plenty of soft targets in this country..sometimes I think these looney tunes are trying to ” one up”…I’m done with this gun debate..it’s a non starter

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:36:49 +0000

G-Man: You’ll be happy to learn that while I am a lawyer, I’ve never been tainted by the practice of law. I had another career, and I went to law school for the challenge and to get a “punched ticket” for when I had to work with lawyers. You as a paralegal certainly can understand how useful that would be. I’m proud I made it through law school and passed the bar, and I’m happy I never had to make a living as a practicing lawyer. Law school opened my eyes to a lot of things, made be a better reader, thinker, and writer, and gave me an appreciation of the role the law played in our history and continues to play in our society and culture.

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:25:29 +0000

We’re not that far apart then. 10 rounds is acceptable to me. Defining “military style” is a problem, as noted before. If it can’t be resolved effectively, then I’d let it go. Still no full auto, 50-cal, bazookas, tanks, RPGs, etc., etc. Yeah, I know semi-auto can be modified, but I want the guy who has one to go to jail and have it confiscated BEFORE he or someone else uses it in a crime, rather than after. So possession has to be a crime. If you really mean “tax away” for effective mental illness prevention and treatment, we’re good.

By: G-Man

G-Man — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:31:00 +0000

@RLW..truth be told I have a soft spot for lawyers..go figure..the greed,you’re all Dems or at least vote that way..pompous a lot..and at times just a drain on everything good about man…my wife’s family is nothing but lawyers..many friends and soon my beautiful niece are JD’s..I’m a paralegal (non practicing)..but I need lawyers in my business dealings…Anyway RLW you’re now more than a Monogram to me now…YOU’LL NEVER GET A WORKABLE BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPONS.(Geez..those caps were my possessed Blackberry..we should ban them)..RLW listen..Some people will want access to RPGs…50Cals..Bazookas..It’s too ingrained here..this is a generational problem..I know what I need…any handgun,rifle or shotgun I want…if you must make them NOT LOOK like Apocolypse Now..fine..I need at least 10rd Mags..and access to any ammo..save for incendiary or armour piercing..If possible I would also like Lindsay Lohan to come over any make me speghetti in a baby doll nightie

By: G-Man

G-Man — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:08:40 +0000

@RLW..As for taxes on ammo guns etc..I say TAX AWAY..that’s one I would be willing to pay.. if our problem could go away..to never see the light of day,to make it safe for children’s play…but not enough for my mother in law to stay…

By: G-Man

G-Man — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:59:25 +0000

Reagan huh?…now revered by Reps and Dems alike…I like him too…I guess those were the times..And now we have millions of damaged people and worse their children walking among us truly “sane” people…It’s not a weapons problem..it’s a WANKER problem..if we can spend billions on failed green energy projects (how did that happen btw)…1.6Billion to maintain the Imperial Style@Hussein House…and a Federal Pension systems(that for elected officials should be dismantled immediately and SHOW prejudice retroactively)…Cut pay of Congress to median pay in their districts for a start and use that money for Good let’s get these few million help,get people to work building some hospitals..(Where’s the infrastructure work btw..we should be in a post WWII BOOM here..something doesn’t smell right…

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:51:20 +0000

Absolutely. Ronald Reagan is famous for closing down the system in Calfornia when he was governor. I think the price of our freedom is to take care of those among us who can’t cope in such a place. We need mental illness prevention and treatment to be a higher priority. Taxes on guns, ammo, junk food, video games, etc. can help pay for it. Beats banning those things, and the good they then do makes them more defensible by advocates. Everybody wins.

By: G-Man

G-Man — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:01:38 +0000

In the 70′s there was a paradigm shift in this country as concerns mental illness…mental hospitals were closed (Woodville Hospital in my State is an example)..and the shift was to more out patient treatment w/medications..well now we’re seeing the effects..we’ve got millions of loons lurking in the shadows..add the technology of the times..our penchant for violent entertainment..(Nothing new..the carnage @ the arenas in Rome etc)..and you begin to see the problem…

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:09:32 +0000

PS: Sorry, it was another letter where I said what I would do: “If it were up to me, I would ban military-style long guns (and certain related equipment, such as laser sights), limit magazine capacity to something like six shots, and tax guns and ammo to fund mental health programs. I would respect the right of self-protection so would not ban handguns. I would respect hunting and sports that use guns, so those long guns would not be banned.”

By: rlw895

rlw895 — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:01:15 +0000

Former FF Res: I agree with you there is a definitional problem, but I think that can be resolved if not here. The “tradition” argument doesn’t carry much weight in the law. The fact that military-style weapons have become much more deadly, even the civilian versions, is what is significant. There comes a “tipping point” at which public safety outweighs tradition. I think we’re well past that point now. Can you think of another argument for why you SHOULD be able to have such a weapon? G-Man: I agree with your comments about fully automatic weapons; people should have ways to shoot them, just not own them. I said above what I would do, and it would include banning some semi-automatic weapons too; the military-style long guns. I also agree that our history and present state means we will not be adopting “draconian” gun restrictions. Democracy and checks and balances pretty well assure that. We can only go as far as the political system and the Constitution will allow, and I frankly think that means we will never be “draconian,” though we may go further as time goes on. Even then it will be well short of the camel pushing us out of the tent. And thanks for checking out further the PA automatic weapon scene for us. Isn’t modifying a semi-auto to full auto, even limited to three-round bursts illegal? Three-round bursts are enough for any sane trained professional. I remember stories from Afghanistan about how people could distinguish the U.S. fire from Afghani fire by sound. The short bursts were the U.S. guys, and the empty-the-magazine-all-at-once bursts were the Afghani guys.

By: G-Man

G-Man — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:12:50 +0000

@RLW..Well Counselor I don’t know your scope of knowledge as regards firearms. But most semi autos can be made to fire full auto or at least 3 round “auto bursts” by a gunsmith..As for buying one I don’t know..as soon as I can chip my car out of my driveway..I’ll go to the gun store and talk to them about it…they sell silencers too..I think you have to pay a FED TAX stamp 250.00 I believe then your gun barrel has to be machined blah blah..again I don’t see the need for silencers in private hands..but would love to shoot one.

By: G-Man

G-Man — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:02:07 +0000

I don’t see the need for fully automatic weapons..except perhaps at licensed shooting ranges to rent..I’ve never fired one ..but I’ll bet it’s fun…Did you know that it’s a proven fact pitting a semi auto or a revolver even vs a full auto gun…the former two will be more accurate and hit the target much more than all those bullets flying around…that monster@ Sandy Hook didn’t have a full auto…But just about every kid he hit he killed what perverse luck…the fact that there’s NOT an overwhelming support for draconian gun control speaks volumes about people and their weapons…66,000,000 legal gun owners didn’t harm anyone yesterday…300 million guns in circulation…like trying to stop a Tsunami w/ sand bags.

By: Former FF resident

Former FF resident — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:19:09 +0000

What it means is that people argue that we shouldn’t be allowed to have military “style” weapons; even if they don’t function like the military version.
Americans have had civilian versions of military weapons from every single era of our history and why should I not be allowed to do the same provided that I am not in a prohibited class?
Oh, you’re an attorney?

Nevermind.