Gun grab is about control!

Gun control is not about ending violence, it's about control

I personally think the left wing Progressives are trying to incite  NRA members to go on some shooting massacre. So far these few events and yes, these events are few,seem to be caused by non political mentally disturbed young people getting even with the world they had difficulty living in. It would be an Ace (they think) for a blood bath to be caused by a right wing NRA member. Everything is political with the left. If the left really wanted to end Violence they would crack down on drugs in the inner cities which are the main cause of shooting deaths every day but it is not about stopping violence, it is about ending rights to people they oppose so greatly. They want to control every aspect of our lives. It is never going to happen . Congress will never touch this.

How is the war on drugs working?

How is the war on bullying working?

Everything the progressives try to control, fails.

And a few 'gun control' laws here, a few there makes it that much easier to scrap the entire 2nd Amendment later on. 

The Progressive Democrats need to understand the United States Constitution along with the Bill of Rights are sealed with the blood of thousands and the law of the land. It is finished.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Intheweeds January 29, 2013 at 10:11 PM
Drew - you hit the nail right on the head. These super right wing gun nut zealots creatively choose what to directly quote, creatively interpret or outright contradict. The whole rationale for the second amendment started from the fact that this was a new country, without a full-time country paid for military that was just separating itself from a tyrannical monarchy. People were legitimately frightened that George Washington, or some subsequent President, could create a central army and squash the individual states into submission. Since there's no state-led militia on the horizon, maybe the second amendment is ripe for updating. I would think that even the framers of the oft-quoted document would look at the current landscape and advocate modified verbiage.
Jack Minster January 29, 2013 at 10:31 PM
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html DC vs Heller. Supreme Court interpreted the "militia" clause. Holding and Rule (Scalia) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The D.C. v. Heller decision marked the first time in its history that the Supreme Court had clearly established that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of gun ownership to individual citizens, rather than granting the states a "collective" right to form armed militias. This Supreme Court ruling established an individual's right to keep and bear arms for the sole purpose of self-defense, if for no other. Quotes of the day: ”A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don’t have one, you’ll probably never need one again.” "When seconds count, remember 9-1-1 is only minutes away."
Tim Lewis January 29, 2013 at 11:28 PM
Why are democrats so intolerant? and hypocritical? talk about closed minded.
Phil January 30, 2013 at 12:06 AM
Um, yeah... All caps comes across like full on freak out mode, Liberty Belle. You've mentioned the left and slavery a couple of times above, with no prompting from anybody else on this forum. Now you are talking incoherently about "a war on women over a damn packet of pills". Honestly, you aren't making a lot of sense.
Phil January 30, 2013 at 12:12 AM
Andrew- So, it sounds like you can't cite any sources for original quotes. As for your others, nicely done. I'll have to spend some time considering those. I don't understand your last sentence. Are you saying I don't have a right to own a motor vehicle? I have the right to own property, and even the non-lethal ones, like my house, have to be registered. You can argue "slippery slope" all you want, but you will soon have to choose between being one of the criminals with guns or registering said gun. I'm fairly confident the registration process is going to happen.
Chin January 30, 2013 at 12:17 AM
A LEGAL immigrant explains it for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU
Andrew Mount January 30, 2013 at 01:21 AM
Intheweeds. So if I don't agree with you I'm a nut? I specifically haven't labeled anyone in this whole conversation but you and several others feel the need to do so? By acknowledging God Congress hasn't passed any laws establishing a religion. Therefore acknowledging God as the granter of rights to all men regardless of what religion you choose to be isn't a violation of the first amendment. But you and Phil haven't shown me where in the Constitution it says that there should be a separation of church and state? I have been consistent in my arguments and I haven't had the need to label anyone or make any assumptions.
Liberty Belle January 30, 2013 at 01:56 AM
As opposed to those who do not take the Constitution so literally? Yes, confirmed that there is a faction in America who does not take the Constitution literally. What a sad case you are, to have been born in a Country that has given you rights like no other and you don't take it literally.
Jack Minster January 30, 2013 at 01:59 AM
Chin, really excellent video, thank you. Hen hao, xie xie.
Chin January 30, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Anti-gun crowd hates stories like this: http://www.guns.com/2013/01/29/concealed-carry-holder-shows-why-its-a-bad-idea-to-pull-a-gun-on-a-dad/
Arthur Lange January 30, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Jack, thanks for removing your disturbing photo. I know your friend Rich wanted that. Good for you listening to him.
Intheweeds January 30, 2013 at 01:36 PM
Thanks for posting that ruling!!! And self-defense in the home does not necessitate military grade assault rifles. The vast majority of people in this discussion are in favor of gun ownership. I, for one, want sensible restrictions on what arms citizens are allowed to own.
Intheweeds January 30, 2013 at 01:44 PM
Considering that the word "God" is not used once in the Constitution, I dare say our country was founded not with God as the granter of rights to all men, but that our nation has been created to allow and protect these rights we feel are absolute. Congress does not acknowledge God. Congress acknowledges the rules and laws that have been established. Included in these laws is the freedom for citizens to pursue any religion they want to, and freedom from the government establishing a national religion.
Jack Minster January 30, 2013 at 01:53 PM
While the Obama administration calls for a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 “personal defense weapons” — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. A report by Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com cites a General Service Administration request for a proposal on behalf of DHS seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, introduced legislation Thursday that would enact a so-called “assault weapons” ban, prohibiting more than 150 firearms and limiting magazines to 10 rounds. Critics, such as Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball, are already blasting the DHS request, arguing that the government deems these firearms as suitable for self-defense but want to ban civilians from owning them. “Now the Department of Homeland Security even agrees that these modern sporting firearms, made illegal by Governor Cuomo, are suitable for self-defense,” Mr Ball said. “On top of that, a recent story reports that two RIT [Rochester Institute of Technology] students who were legal gun owners were protected by an AR-15. The story may have had a very tragic ending, had Governor Cuomo’s anti-self-defense bill been in full effect.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/homeland-security-seeking-7000-assault-weapons-per/#ixzz2JSzfz4xa
Andrew Mount January 30, 2013 at 03:05 PM
Intheweeds, The basis for the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence. The first paragraph of that document... "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Andrew Mount January 30, 2013 at 03:21 PM
The right of the people to be free has to come from somewhere would you agree? If other men, regardless of station, were to grant you these rights, can they also take them away? Of course! This is and was the most amazing experiment at the time. Power and authority over other people were granted to others simply by the station in life that they found themselves in. The first born son of the King, was eventually given life and death power over his subjects. Some kings used this power in ethical ways. Others did not. Our country was founded on the republican (don't confuse this with the republican party) philosphic traditions stemming from Aristotle's observations that basic to tyrants was a mistrust of the people, and therefore they deprived them of arms. This principle has been borne out of work by others, like James Madison in the Federalist Papers, William Blackstone, Justice Joseph Story, William Rawle, Thomas Cooley, Cicero, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rouseau. Don't take my word on it, look it up for yourself. There are two enemies to the peoples freedoms, criminals and government. The purpose of the Constitution is so that we can chain down the government so it does not become a legalized version of criminals. Understand that the Constitution is not a limit on the people. It spells out limits to our federal government. Those who are elected to public office SERVE the people, not the other way around.
Moe January 30, 2013 at 05:45 PM
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
Charles Scheim January 30, 2013 at 10:42 PM
I want to own nuclear arms in defense of myself. Also a couple of tanks and fighter planes. Since this is my right under the PA constitution, can someone tell me where I can obtain them?
Jack Minster January 31, 2013 at 03:11 AM
The dreaded frightening AR15, we hear so much about it mostly from people who never even fired one. Tens of millions of AR15s out there, along with the similar Mini-14 and others. Semi-automatic rifles with 20-round clips. A shooter can pop-pop-pop 20 targets, if he's a very capable shooter, in about 20 seconds. Banning these will help solve gun violence, so says Obama, Feinstein, Schumer, Cuomo - and apparently many believe it. I hear legal, sane, upstanding citizens should be limited to owning only hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns with less than 10-round magazines. http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/primary/415/415505.jpg Above is called a full moon clip. It holds six rounds. It takes a capable shooter approximately 2-3 seconds to click open the cylinder, drop the spent clip, drop in a new one, and continue firing. General Custer, Wild Bill Hickock, Jessie James, Wyatt Earp - back in the old days, men defended themselves with good old Colt 45 six-shooter pistols. Capable shooters all. It would probably take them 28 seconds to hit 24 targets. Ban every gun? Ban the components needed to easily make powerful pipe bombs available at Home Depot? Banning semi-automatic rifles. It's like fighting pneumonia with cough drops. Does nothing to cure the problem. But it would morph many currently sane, legal gun owners into criminals, because tens of millions of them will not give up their semi-automatic rifles to the mood of the day.
Bill January 31, 2013 at 04:33 AM
Since Australia's Gun Ban Armed robberies up 69% Assault with Guns up 28% Gun murders up 19% Home Invasion up 21% Gun Control in Australia - Watch and Weep https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA
Bill January 31, 2013 at 04:43 AM
From the men who's job it is to overthrow governments. Read the Letter 1,100 Green Berets Signed for Protection of the 2nd Amendment "Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes". http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/30/read-the-letter-1100-green-berets-signed-for-protection-of-the-2nd-amendment/
Liberty Belle January 31, 2013 at 04:59 AM
Bill....the facts we know. But, this doesn't do anything for them. This gun grab has zero to do with protecting people and everything to do with power and putting a dent in a Constitution they never upheld. They can claim how they want to save lives. It's bull. Curtail 2nd Amendment rights, easier then to go after the 1st Amendment and eventually we get a new Constitution written by them. Who are they trying to fool ?
Liberty Belle January 31, 2013 at 05:01 AM
Yesterday's Patriots wanted to be free of England....the Constitution was for us to have a 'bullet' to use against a tyrannical government
Bill January 31, 2013 at 10:20 PM
If you would like to sign the petition No more assaults on our gun rights. No more assaults on our civil liberties. http://www.chooseliberty.org/libertydirective.aspx?pid=0130d
Leanie Kennedy February 01, 2013 at 05:46 PM
Oh great and wise constitutional scholars....(as there are so many of you here), where in the constitution am I given the right to not be shot?!
Andrew Mount February 01, 2013 at 06:43 PM
It's not in the Constitution but is in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is written to constrain the Government.
Leanie Kennedy February 01, 2013 at 11:26 PM
So in order to constrain the government, I lose my right to not be shot...in order to protect me from the government that is charged with protecting me?
Moe February 02, 2013 at 12:59 AM
You have a right to life. If a criminal is intent on ending your life there are other ways than just being shot. Murder is illegal. Criminals commit murder. Stop buying into the gov't and media inspired hysteria. So called "assault weapons", another anti-gun invented term, are used in about 1% of all firearms crimes.
Bill February 04, 2013 at 11:29 PM
Why is gov stockpiling guns, ammo? So why does Homeland Security need so many weapons and enough hollow-point rounds to plug every American six times? http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-is-government-stockpiling-guns-ammo/ O said, "We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as our military” http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/70160/ 16:50 mark
Chin February 05, 2013 at 04:02 PM
Surely the Social Security Administration needs to be well armed for when the senior citizens revolt for better benefits. O wants his little army of storm troopers to control the sheep once he has disarmed the citizens of this country.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something