Tampa Paper: Gun Rights Not Absolute

452

In an editorial in the Tampa Bay Times, the newspaper’s editors make the well-worn case against the Second Amendment, telling readers that strict adherence to the Constitution would put public safety in jeopardy. Arguing against the “gun zealots and the National Rifle Association” and their influence in the state legislature, the paper claims that “gun rights are not absolute.”

By what authority do they make this claim? It’s not an uncommon one. You can’t be in favor of gun control and believe wholeheartedly in the words “shall not be infringed.” Yet most Americans do believe there should be some restrictions on gun rights. Few support sending schoolchildren off to a day of classes with a revolver tucked away in their backpacks. You won’t find too many people arguing for the full repeal of background checks. You’d have to look long and hard to find people who support the right of Americans to own weapons of mass destruction, even though those could also be ostensibly protected by the word “arms.”

So, the truth is that we already believe there should be “common sense” in our gun laws, a concept the paper’s editors think has been abandoned. Unfortunately, the laws anti-gun activists want to see go far beyond common sense. They want cities and states to be more like Washington D.C., handing carry permits only to those citizens who can prove their lives are in clear and imminent danger. They refuse to acknowledge the mountain of statistics proving that law-abiding permit holders are not – by any means – the problem when it comes to America’s gun violence. The problem comes from those who never had a permit to begin with. Street criminals, gang members, and psychos. Pass all the laws you want, and it won’t do one damn thing to keep guns out of the hands of these outlaws. That’s the meaning of outlaw.

This weekend, the Washington Post ran a snide story about how all of the prospective Republican candidates for 2016 held more or less the same views on the Second Amendment. Why would this even be a story? Why would there be any viable national politician on either side of the aisle who did not believe in the Constitution? Shouldn’t that be one of the basic litmus tests?

That’s not the case, though. The left believes it’s perfectly acceptable to question the integrity of that hallowed document. And to be sure, there is a mechanism in our Constitution allowing for changes. But these politicians don’t run on platforms to change the Constitution. They run in the hopes of subverting our rights without actually going through the proper channels. They insist that it doesn’t mean what it says. That it’s outdated, or that the Founding Fathers meant only that state militias had the right to bear arms.

We get called “zealots” for pointing to the Constitution and saying, “Hey guys, maybe we should just follow this, ya know?” Well, if adherence to the law makes me a zealot, then that’s a label I’ll wear with pride.

452 Comments
  1. Daniel W says

    Somebody should inform the editor of the Tampa Bay times if the second amendment is abolished the rights to free speech will soon follow. Think about it, our forefathers had the insight to include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights for this very reason.

  2. Keith Allison says

    You can count me as another zealot. The Constitution means precisely what it says, American’s have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms openly or concealed for their own safety and the safety of those around them.

    1. Rattlerjake says

      How is it that so many states, like North Carolina, get away with forcing the payment of fees for permits to conceal carry as well as requiring a permit to buy a handgun? Why is there nothing in place to prevent legislatures from creating and enforcing these unconstitutional laws. As it stands, you, as a normal everyday law abiding citizen have zero chance in court without paying excessive legal fees, to fight any charges levied against you, and it is a crap shoot whether you will win or loose. The entire legal system is paid for by the citizens but OWNED by the criminals in the government corporation.

      1. Nate Opgenorth says

        I’ll take getting a North Carolina permit over having to try and get any kind of permit to even possess a handgun here in NY State. Takes a year to get approved.

        1. Rattlerjake says

          Fact is that people like you are the cause of these unlawful regulations. You will simply accept a permit if it is easy to get and not too expensive, instead of fighting to keep government from establishing these laws in the first place. NY, Mexifornia, Connecticut, etc. are states that started with small losses of rights and have snowballed to all out dictatorship! Texas, this year, overturned a 150 year old, illegal and unconstitutional gun law preventing open carry, this shows what can be done if the people will fight instead of surrender; other states have gotten rid of the permit/fee requirements for conceal carry, as we in NC are trying to do now! Sadly, a conservative in NY or Mexifornia is like a flea on an elephant!

          1. Nate Opgenorth says

            I’m definitely fighting to get the Government out of the business of overregulation. Its not fair to characterize me or anyone from NY for the faults of corrupt politicians, the whole country as a whole has allowed for far too much regulation by the Government and like you said small losses start snowballing. I’m not from NY State, I just live here for unfortunate reasons, originally from Wisconsin, as soon as I can I’ll be moving out, I have a lot of friends in NC BTW. I don’t vote for the scumbags like our Governor who passed an anti-gun law over night that everyone disapproved of. In NY State everything outside of the NYC Metro area is reasonably sane (well except for Albany the capital). 52/62 county sheriff’s have refused to enforce the NY SAFE Act and no one has really registered their so called “assault weapons”. I hope more and more states get constitutional carry, including my home state of WI.

          2. Rattlerjake says

            Sorry, It’s the way your reply read that lead me to the conclusion.

          3. OldPatriot32 says

            Glad to know the insanity is limited to those two areas, but any sizeable city there or elsewhere is suspect, IMHO.

          4. Nate Opgenorth says

            Really its amazing how much opposition there is to the NY SAFE Act. I remember when Sandy Hook happened I immediately knew something insane would be passed but I thought my fellow citizens would just lay down (you know….BOHICA) but we’ve got all this opposition to it. I personally know a handful of Sheriff’s that would never enforce this, originally even law enforcement wasn’t exempt for personal purchases (although now they are which is BS). With pistol permits though the issuing authority is the county judge….and they can revoke a permit for any reason or no reason at all….in some of the liberal counties by NYC there are stories of folks having their permit revoked because that persons ex-girlfriends brother knew a Judge and suddenly someone has to sell all their handguns. But yes any large city is always going to be suspect but realistically unless that city starts to outsize the county its not to big of a threat (but I guess you never know).

          5. tinkerunique says

            Colorado HAD a recall for a couple “elected elite” that wanted to restrict gun use. They got voted OUT of office, and a 3d “retired” so she could keep her pension and “perks”. IT CAN BE DONE, but it takes cooperation on ALL gun people to do it.

          6. grunion says

            Just be careful and highly discretionary about whom you would trust.

          7. Nate Opgenorth says

            Indeed. Even posting on the Internet about perfectly legal things kind of spooks me at times. I’m very cautious in general though.

          8. Keith Allison says

            The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. What constitutes due process of law varies from situation to situation, bu the core of the idea is that a person should have notice and a real chance to present his or her side in a legal dispute and that no law or government procedure should be arbitrary or unfair.

          9. Keith Allison says

            Under Constitutional law 81, the legislature cannot enact a lawful statute by invoking the police power on the pretense of protecting pubic interests when the real objective of statute constitutes an arbitrary interference with private business, or imposes unusual and unnecessary restrictions on lawful occupations, and if such statute does not tend to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare, it is void as an invasion of individual property rights.

          10. Keith Allison says

            Constitutional Law 81 also states, “The legislature cannot enact a lawful statute by invoking the Police Power on the pretense of protecting public interests when the real objective of statute constitutes an arbitrary and unnecn on lawful occupations, and if such staatute does not tend to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare, it is void as an invasion of individual Property Rights.

          11. Keith Allison says

            Also, consider the case of Bennet vs. Boggs, 1 Baldw. 60: Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common Right and Reason, are null and void.

          12. Keith Allison says

            Personal liberty or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty is one of the fundamental Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in various Constitutions, which is not derived from, nor dependent upon, the U.S. Constitution. It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights, as sacred as the Right to private property, and is regarded as indivisible.

          13. Keith Allison says

            Panhandle Eastern Pipelin co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 U.S. 613:… it is elementary that the Police Power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

          14. Keith Allison says

            Under the case of Meyer vs. Nebraska, it was stataed by the Court: “Under the 14th Amendment, liberty means more than freedom from bodily restraint, and that state regulation of liberty must be reasonably related to a proper state objective.

          15. Keith Allison says

            Replogle vs. Little Rock, 166 Ark. 617, 267 S.W. 353 (1924), it was held: “Under our State and Federal Constitutions, all men have the inalienable right to acquire, possess and protect property, and to pursue their own happiness. And of these sacred Rights, no man can be deprived without due process of law.

          16. Keith Allison says

            The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

          17. Keith Allison says

            Under Constitutional Law, the fact the legislature has involked the Police Pow directed against an activity, such as a trade, is not conclusive that power was lawfully exercised.

          18. tinkerunique says

            MOST states (to my knowledge) have no restriction on OPEN carry. I have concealed carry in 3 states, in the past, and got one in TN just as an already-done background check, because most employers do a background check before hiring.

          19. Nate Opgenorth says

            Woah I never thought of a carry permit helping for employer background checks! That’s interesting for sure. I know many states don’t require a background check for each firearm purchase if you have a carry permit but using that advantage outside the gun world is interesting.

          20. grunion says

            Well, we have yet to actually overturn the laws but the legislation is moving and all signs point to a positive result. I live in Texas and it has annoyed me for decades that I had to practically smuggle my weapons from my home to the country. Now, I just live in the woods and don’t worry about it. This “Constitutional Carry” thing had better pass or we will have another group of freshman legislators.

        2. born free says

          I won’t register or get a CCW just to stay off the BATF national registration database

          1. OldPatriot32 says

            Yep, agreed; don’t say, don’t tell, don’t show!

          2. Nate Opgenorth says

            I initially always thought that was the way to go but honestly with the internet these days they know everything they need or want to know. I mean you can’t tell me a background check isn’t going to be documented!

          3. born free says

            Is is documented at the DOT here but I’m not sure about other states.
            But that is also why the BATF is trying to access all the 4473s from the dealerships.
            I figure the less info I personally provide though the less damage can be done.

          4. Nate Opgenorth says

            If the CIA/NSA/DHS whatever is going through our phones, computers, etc. I have no doubt they are collecting 4473’s. Pretty sure FFL’s don’t have to turn over their record books if they decide to close but I thought there were some exceptions. Regardless FFL’s aren’t the only place to (legally) buy guns and I can only hope it stays that way. Vermont has always had a good hands off approach to firearms by just not regulating at all! People say we need to have gun laws like Arizona, Wyoming, Alaska with constitutional carry and I say no we need to be like Vermont with just not being bothered! Kids at 16 can carry in Vermont, doesn’t get much more hands off than that!

          5. born free says

            We have an open carry law here, ive never practiced it because of course I don’t want to invite disaster. From the youtubes I’ve watched with people exercising the right there is always a cop responding to a citizen call to 911. “Oh my god, it looks like someone is going to shoot up a school, PLEASE HURRY.”
            I even bought a western quick draw rig so that in the eventuality I do decide to open carry it is truly OPEN.

          6. Nate Opgenorth says

            I don’t personally want to exercize open carry outside of rural areas, areas that are gun friendly or on my own property but I completely support it. I would definitely get a CC permit though regardless, all it takes is a jacket to cover the gun and the vague wording of even some gun friendly states open carry laws can be twisted in court. I think open carry without a permit like most states is the way to constitutional carry…I mean they probably think hey if you can open carry a handgun with no permit why not conceal carry without one? They think no big deal. The more states that get constitutional carry the better off 2A rights are nationwide I say. I know in Delaware County, NY judges actually issue OPEN carry permits more often despite the state saying that open carry is illegal, a couple of cases against open carriers were brought but jury nullification kept counter acting!

          7. born free says

            Here open carry is legal within city limits.
            Registration is not required anywhere except, of course, the county I live in. Wouldn’t you know. Lol.
            There have been bills to repeal the county registration requirement, including currently, but as of yet haven’t been successful.

          8. Nate Opgenorth says

            Within city limits or outside city limits? I know in a few states in unincorporated areas, outside city limits, etc. Interesting. What state if you don’t mind sharing?

          9. born free says

            Within. And state wide.
            The actual reason why the county requires registration on hand guns is because of the casinos. And it’s grandfathered.

          10. Nate Opgenorth says

            Ah I remember reading about how Clark County has that grandfathered in despite state preemption. I think their is a town within the county that doesnt require it. I understand the idea but its a slippery slope because then every city says they have special circumstances.

          11. born free says

            Yeah, I don’t get how the preemption doesn’t apply to the county.
            If I could get into a different business or county that would allow me to have an extended commute I would do so.

          12. born free says

            You may be referring to henderson, it shares city line with LV, if I remember right about the requirements. But my dealer told me I was supposed to register anyway despite city ordinance..

          13. born free says

            LV NV.

          14. Paul Smith says

            Why do we need a permit to conceal carry? I have a right to carry a concealed wallet or a concealed flashlight or concealed keys without permits. What purpose does a concealed carry permit provide?

          15. Vernon Cunningham says

            the “leaders” will get every dollar they can for their pet projects. To stay in office, they need people that depend on their “welfare’.

          16. Paul Smith says

            Of course you are correct but that doesn’t answer my question. The Constitution is quite clear “keep and bear arms” in order to preserve our “right to life”. Just like getting IDs for voting, ANY restriction, tax or fee illegally restricts that right. The NRA, GOA, etc. try to overturn these illegal laws but we could do it much more quickly if we simply ignored them. If we all made our own guns and ammunition, we would quickly put serious pressure on FFLs and manufacturers who would then put great pressure on government at all levels.

          17. Vernon Cunningham says

            agreed. But we have beaurocrats that try every means to control our lives. They need to go. I did a “kit”, and it turned out well.

          18. Nate Opgenorth says

            I would like to see more indepedent firearms makers that do not sell out of state and only create and sell firearms in state. The reason I bring this up is because the ATF’s authority rests essentially on the commerce clause, if the firearms a maker makes in State X stay in State X the ATF would really loose there grip. I think there was a guy who has a pending case in US District Court over this in Montana or something.

          19. Arizona Don says

            Revenue its all about money!

          20. Arizona Don says

            Some facts readily found with research.

            http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/boom-federal-gun-laws-unconstitutional/

            Publius Huldah

            Article V convention

            https://vimeo.com/107933176

          21. Arizona Don says

            When concealed carry is legal under the second amendment crime goes down more so then in an open carry situation. The reason being the criminal never knows who is carrying and who isn’t. Not everyone need or wants to carry a gun even for protection. Most if not all the gun grabbers don’t understand that. However, it is true Arizona is certainly all the proof needed. Open carry has always been legal here. Until about 1927 or around there so was concealed.

          22. Guest says

            Trapped! I would honestly leave to Virginia or Arizona in a week if I
            could but unfortunately I have obligations in state that I have no
            control over, not even talking about a job either, I know jobs are
            booming in free states. Some people have siblings or children that they
            have shared custody with a person who doesn’t want to move (or sane for that matter), or are in college
            or have family in college, etc. Believe me when you live in NY State for
            so long you get tired of the insane taxes, the everything-you-do-or-might-do-is-a-crime attitude and legislation and one miserable city 5.5hours away legislating for the whole state. Regardless I think its reasonable to stay and fight for not just your rights but your fellow citizens rights in a state, imagine if our forefathers abandoned every fight without trying! That said I need warm weather and I have family and friends in Virginia and Arizona, the trouble will be picking I suppose…

          23. Arizona Don says

            I understand. I guess there are two ways to look at this. One is if you think it could change in the future stay and fight as you suggest. If things change however, and you see or find out it may be impossible to make good changes vote with you feet and leave. Keep one thing in mind picking up an moving to another state is never easy but sometimes worth the effort and sacrifice. None of us have any say over where we are born but we do where we live. Good luck!

          24. Nate Opgenorth says

            I have to keep analyzing it day by day to see if things will change. Republicans had a major power sweep recently so that is good. I’ve moved before, I remember moving to NY in 1998 from Wisconsin. Wherever I end up moving I think I will make it a long term decision and investment so I will have to look at the best state for a variety of things and freedom is #1 for sure.

          25. Nate Opgenorth says

            Excellent point. If you really “put your self in a criminals shoes” in mindset for a few minutes and think about it you’d have to be crazy not to worry about the armed citizen who carries, and if they know that a gun doesn’t have to be openly displayed that is a lot of doubt. I mean I’m assuming most criminals are sane and fear death within reason (as we all should) but if not the gene pool gets cleaned as cold as that sounds.

          26. Paul Smith says

            History proves your fears baseless.

          27. Nate Opgenorth says

            What?

          28. Paul Smith says

            What, what? I didn’t stutter. Where citizens carry arms, crime decreases often dramatically.

          29. Nate Opgenorth says

            That’s my entire point….I’m a huge carry advocate and put a lot of time and money into it (although I am still a newb to carry living in a blue state where permits are hard to get). I thought you were trying to say that choosing to carry is baseless fear. I made the argument of putting yourself in a criminals shoes because the only time one has to fear a citizen carrying is if they are up to no good which is GOOD. Perhaps I didn’t word it correctly?

          30. Paul Smith says

            Excellent. We miss-communicated but it’s all good. I’d sure like to see constitutional carry become the law of the land in my lifetime – I think my children and grandchildren need it badly.

          31. tinkerunique says

            I bought a western holster years ago for the old .44 that Dad had. I wore it hunting and for a few local quick-draw competitions. Dad had a cross-over holster for it and cut a couple slits in the barrel part of the holster to wear it “higher” when he carried payroll for the company. The cross-over CAN be ‘handled’ by either hand, even when sitting. I have a “duty holster for my 9mm and have worn it during my “days” as an Armed Security Guard, and several cross country trips. During those trips I have never gotten a 2d look when I got gas and went inside to pay for it. < It helps to dress neat and business-like. The ONLY "disturbance" was from a few hippy types that appeared a bit shady.

          32. born free says

            Very cool stuff.
            I have the same for my 9mm.
            Belt clip on and includes an extra mag pocket.
            Between it and my extra double mag holder I can carry 60 rounds 😀

          33. born free says

            That’s the way it should be.
            A man carries for and should be able to be recognized for self defense. But the Anti 2nd crowd has vilified anyone who exercises their 2nd Ammendment right.including law enforcement.
            If everyone carried crime would be diminished faster than a criminal can say “don’t shoot me, I wasn’t really going to rob you”

          34. ricarrdo estavans says

            I love those western style holsters. I purchased one from the NRA catalog and then purchased a colt peacemaker to fill it. Cartridge belt and all in 45 colt caliber. Awesome.

          35. born free says

            I picked up my 357 rig for $80 at a local gun show. Very nice Eastwood style low hang.

          36. Ray Williams says

            If you are going to open carry, a quick draw holster makes it very easy for someone to disarm you. you truly need eyes in the back of your head.

          37. grunion says

            I envy your State’s policy and I live in Texas for God’s sake!

          38. Nate Opgenorth says

            Haha its Vermont’s policy but I live in NY State. Vermont is completely hands off. No permits for anything firearm related, only hoop to jump through is if you want a gun at an FFL you have to be 21 for handguns and 18 for long guns but that’s because of the feds.

          39. Arizona Don says

            There is no law (now) that says you have to report selling a gun to an individual either. So claiming you sold the gun(s) after you (securely) bury them is always an option.

          40. Vernon Cunningham says

            Illinois got around that. Now you have to go to a dealer and apply for the transfer. many are ignoring that law.

          41. Arizona Don says

            Why does anyone live there? I would not!!!!!!!!!!

          42. Vernon Cunningham says

            we were born here in better days. It is politics of the modern era that screwed everything up. And some like me are in their 790’s and would find moving hard because of friends, and family. So we work for better government. Now we have a republican. Hope he can make things better.

          43. Arizona Don says

            I understand and no one can fault you for wishing to change that government. You may however, find that in insurmountable task. Good luck.

          44. Paul Smith says

            Better to try and fail than not to try. Either begets war but success might just prevent it.

          45. Nate Opgenorth says

            NY State has it too, you have to transfer all firearms via an FFL. Private sales are sadly going to be a thing of the past.

          46. Paul Smith says

            And you are allowing that to happen. . .why?

          47. Nate Opgenorth says

            Oh just like the registration of so called “assault weapons” in NY State under the SAFE Act I’m not entirely sure that its being followed…just another point to add.

          48. Paul Smith says

            Until NY gun owners FORCEFULLY push back, these laws will continue to be implemented. Y’alls decision.

          49. Nate Opgenorth says

            We (NYS) currently has the largest National Rifle Association chapter in the country, it went from 21,000 to 44,000 in one year after the SAFE Act. You would not think the state is a blue state if you saw what I saw in my cushy suburban town even, go rural and its as red as it gets. 52/62 counties and county sheriff’s oppose the SAFE Act, including the county in which the capital is located, in fact those 52/62 counties passed resolutions to prevent the state from using their county seal in any literature citing the SAFE Act. The majority of those county’s sheriff’s also say they will NOT enforce the SAFE Act! I see anti-cuomo stickers/signs, NRA stickers/signs, AR15 stickers, repeal SAFE Act signs and stickers, etc. all over the place…to say that the opposition to gun control in this state is similar to California or other states would be a disrespectful comparison because I’ve met some of the most pro-gun conservative folks I’ve ever met in this state, they make even some of the people I know down south look pale. Even folks her arent gun advocates have recognized the dangerous precedent set by our insane Governor and how big Government = bad.

          50. Paul Smith says

            I understand what you’re trying to say. . .clearly it’s not enough.

          51. Arizona Don says

            Not supposed to be but a lot of things are happening now that pertains to. Don’t understand why the executive branch going against the constitution is not a high crime or misdemeanor. Seems to me it should be!

          52. ricarrdo estavans says

            Build a ghost gun. With the right tools and patience you can do it. AR15 upper polymer receivers are easy to build. Contact Ares Armor.

          53. born free says

            I’ve looked into ot.
            An aircraft grade aluminum 80% lower is only $75 plus shipping.
            Then you have to go to another site and buy the PDF downloadable drilling template and instructions.

          54. Vernon Cunningham says

            You can get the whole kit and template from one company. Search the web.

          55. Vernon Cunningham says

            LOL, my first one took about 3 weeks. The second took 5 hours. I believe with the right drills, I could make one function in under 4 hours.

          56. grunion says

            “Constitutional Carry”, it is the law. Those who would attempt to alter or eliminate our God given right to bear arms as enumerated in the Constitution, are criminals and should be charged. What are we waiting for, more money?
            America will never disarm. Any government effort to take weapons away from the people who have arms and do not care to relinquish them to some government stooge will result in only one outcome. A blood bath of epic proportion. You wanna talk about a line in the sand? Americans are very serious people when aroused.

          57. born free says

            There are 1000s that if confiscations show up in force swat like will turn them over just to protect their families from a blood bath.
            6-12 heavily armed men showing up at a door in full military gear will be very intimidating to a lot of people.

          58. grunion says

            Yup and that is why I maintain that a concerted government effort will result in massive bloodshed.

          59. Paul Smith says

            So? Give them up. Don’t sacrifice your life for what can be easily and quickly replaced.

          60. born free says

            Replace them with what?
            When all FFL dealers are shut down and private would be sellers were confiscated too?
            I wonder if all the internet providers have been served with their shut down date orders yet.

          61. Nate Opgenorth says

            Not to sound paranoid but I would keep a stash of long guns purchased via private sale (so no paper trail via the ATF) in a safe spot. There was a guy here in NY that got charged under our BS SAFE Act and he openly admitted to having stored the remainder of his guns in a location not specified, guy was a Marine Corps veteran and firearms instructor and got charged with 3 felonies….not sure if he said they were under his wife’s name or not but I found it interesting. The story was pretty hard to swallow though, the guys entire life was teaching safe handling of firearms to military, LE, and armed citizens and now he can’t legally even touch a bullet let alone a gun/

          62. born free says

            They have taken hard measures against all vets, at the last count, that is admitted to, 120k vets have had their 2nd Ammendment rights stripped under the pretense of mental disability.

          63. Nate Opgenorth says

            Its very scary. Go to the VA and say you forgot an appointment and have been forgetful and suddenly your wife is getting all your bills, legal documents, etc. courtesy of the VA’s judgement that you are legally incompetent or something. Aside from gun rights I have noticed that the military’s commanders that served in war time have been removed one way or another by the president. Wouldn’t want a war hero during peace time now would we! Not as easy to brain wash!

          64. born free says

            And they would have no part of this coming July, they are patriots who fought for their country not against it.

          65. Arizona Don says

            I don’t know why you guys stay in a state like that?

          66. Nate Opgenorth says

            Trapped! I would honestly leave to Virginia or Arizona in a week if I
            could but unfortunately I have obligations in state that I have no
            control over, not even talking about a job either, I know jobs are
            booming in free states. Some people have siblings or children that they
            have shared custody with a person who doesn’t want to move (or sane for that matter), or are in college or have family in college, etc. Believe me when you live in NY State for
            so long you get tired of the insane taxes, the everything-you-do-or-might-do-is-a-crime attitude and legislation and one miserable city 5.5hours away legislating for the whole state. Regardless I think its reasonable to stay and fight for not just your rights but your fellow citizens rights in a state, imagine if our forefathers abandoned every fight without trying! That said I need warm weather and I have family and friends in Virginia and Arizona, the trouble will be picking I suppose….

          67. born free says

            I’d be better off just selling everything and leave nothing for the bastids to steal.

          68. Paul Smith says

            Got to practice. Got to protect yourself. Got to train your kids. Just don’t get so attached to what you’ve got that it costs you your life. Give ‘em up, get new ones, get in the trenches.

          69. Vernon Cunningham says

            paul, I am 74 and not a martyr, but some things have to be held at bey,. I would not surrender my weapons peacefully. I am a collector and no threat to anyone. There is no reason for any agency to remove my collection or safety concerns. When I reach a point that I am no longer competant to handle my affairs, then my family will ” legally ” inherite my collection. I am always available to use my collection for a display at a function that involves ROTC, CAP, young marines, and veterans, and that is because my collection is old war syle weapons. But should the government attack me to collect my guns, I would stand my ground. Death for me is not something I fear. .

          70. born free says

            And that is my exact problem with the state legislatures. They have no business in meddling with the constitution yet they subvert it all the time.

          71. Vernon Cunningham says

            you can buy a “kit” that allows you to make your own weapon. They are as good as those manufactured by a business. It takes a few tools, and some time. And people should not be afraid to try to make their own.

          72. Paul Smith says

            Are we talking files and screwdrivers or CNC machines, lathes and drill presses?

          73. Vernon Cunningham says

            i had to buy a drill press. Not an expensive one. And milling bits. My first weapon I used the drill press with regular drill bits, and a dremel. It took a lot of work and precision was not totally necessary to get the weapon to work. Buty it has to be close. Not hard to do if you measure. I was a chemist, no real work experience, LOL. All you do is drill out the sections to tolerance with a template, and believe me, If I can do it anyone can. Most of the work is done to the 80% receiver. Just remember hoe the trigger spring goes on. Reversed doesn’t work well. My first weapon took 3 or more weeks due to the dremel work. The next took 5 hours, and would be less if we had the bits. Look it up. Look for 80% lower receivers, or ar15, and you will find the company that can show you step by step.

          74. Vernon Cunningham says

            Look up ” daytona tactical systems”.

          75. Ray Williams says

            If you bought your guns anywhere except from a private seller, you are already in a database.

        3. Ronald Gunn says

          In Alabama it only took me 30 days to get a concealed weapons permit and it only cost me $12.00.

          1. Nate Opgenorth says

            Rubbing it in my face? 😀 Yeah someone was telling me about how fast they got their permit there. When I went to apply for my VA Non-resident permit the Virginia State Police were so helpful, I was shocked at how well they treated me…really made me feel at home and made me want to get a VA CHP even more since I’m all about supporting those that do the right thing. As weird as it may sound I had a dream that my NY carry permit came in the mail, then I woke up and realized I was dreaming…lol. Here I had to pay $100 for finger prints off a live scan finger printer from a 3rd party despite my local PD doing finger printing for FREE the State wouldn’t accept that. Then I had to pay another $70 for turning in the application…I had to get 4 character references too. My sheriff’s office and local PD are great, I know all the LEO’s around here very well but the state ties there hands very much. If we cut off NYC I swear this state would be red, in my suburban town I see NRA, Come and Take them, repeal-SAFE Act and anti-Gov. Cuomo stickers EVERYWHERE. Hard to want to leave a state that has good people but crooked politicians fueled by one giant metro area with no concept of reality.

          2. born free says

            It’s all such a racket.
            It really peaed me off when Congressman Joe Heck told me, during a radio based town hall meeting call in, that $25 background check fees were.not a 1st Ammendment infringement.

          3. bill says

            nate we here in the peoples republic of Kalifornia have the same demographics such as frisco and elay. if we got rid of those two areas the state would also be red.

        4. born free says

          Speaking of NC Did you happen to be in the area of the national Guards exercises during the March 5-12 door to door health and well being checks?

          1. Nate Opgenorth says

            Nah. That’s interesting. I love these “exercises”…..I’ll have to ask my buddy in the service though.

          2. born free says

            Here’s the skinny on it.

            Brandon Turbeville
            Activist Post
            In yet another example of the growing trend of the process of acclimatization of the general public to an open military presence
            on American streets as well as greater cooperation between the US Military and civilian law enforcement, South Carolina was recently the scene of a statewide “emergency preparedness” drill that incorporated both of these aspects in a visible form.
            On March 7, 2015, the state-wide drill, entitled Operation Vigilant Guard, took place under the pretext of preparation for the inevitable destruction a hurricane would bring to South Carolina. According to reports in the local media, the drills were based on the premise of the landfall of a Category 4 hurricane and “how they’d respond to get citizens help” in such an event.
            The training involved the South Carolina National Guard as well as National Guard units from Georgia in addition to participants from local and state law enforcement agencies as well as local and state “officials.”
            In the Florence area, there were at least 400 hundred military personnel involved in the exercise. All in all, however, around 2,000 military personnel participated state-wide and 5,000 participants were involved from South Carolina emergency management Divisions and county divisions of Emergency Management.
            According to the National Guard press release announcing the drill,
            The South Carolina National Guard, along with state and county emergency management agencies, will conduct a disaster readiness exercise called Vigilant Guard beginning this weekend, part of which will include the mock in-processing of approximately 300 military and civilian personnel Saturday at McCrady Training Center in Eastover.
            Joint Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration, or JRSOI, is the process that will be utilized by the South Carolina National Guard to in-process support personnel from partner agencies during a real-world emergency.
            Vigilant Guard is an eight-day field exercise held March 5-12, taking place at numerous locations across South Carolina. This exercise will test the ability of the National Guard to support response operations based on simulated emergency scenarios such as the landfall of a hurricane, a collapsed building, widespread fires and mass casualties.
            The National Guard, along with local, state and federal partners will be deployed to exercise venues in Georgetown, with other sites including Moncks Corner, Spartanburg, Florence, West Columbia and Williamsburg.
            While this writer witnessed a portion of the drill in Florence, the application of the drill in Monck’s Corner is what is most disturbing.
            In Monck’s Corner, SC National Guard personnel, the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office, and other state and local “emergency responders” went door to door conducting “wellness checks” on civilian homes. The sight of military personnel going door to door in civilian neighborhoods is beyond creepy to say the least.
            As the Press Release on the SC National Guard website states,
            The SCNG partnered with the S.C. State Guard, the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Department and other local emergency responders to conduct health and wellness checks in the Overton neighborhood. The joint task force went door-to-door checking on the local residents, assessed their needs and determined how best to meet those needs in a real response.
            “In the scenario, our job today was to assist the S.C. State Guard, along with various Berkeley County emergency responders, and perform health and wellness checks for citizens who might have been affected by the storm,” said Sgt. Jeremy Argabright, Bravo Company, 1-118 Infantry.
            Such door-to-door “wellness checks” also took place in Overton, S.C.
            The portion of the drills that were witnessed by this writer involved a setup of about 9 military tents outside of the Florence, SC airport. A number of trucks were present as well as Humvees, many of which were outfitted with machine gun turrets and machine guns. A sign reading “Region 4: HRF” was posted outside of the airport. HRF stands for Homeland Response Force and Region 4 represents the FEMA region of the area. As the convoy was preparing to leave the field site in front of the airport, a bus had been added to the mix. Many helicopters and chopper sightings were reported as well.
            Numerous military vehicles were seen on the streets of Florence throughout the day.
            It should be noted, however, that while the local media and the State Guard represented the exercises as having been focused on hurricane landfall and natural disasters, there were unconfirmed reports of artillery being fired in the areas near Florence and Pamplico.
            There were other reports suggesting (also not confirmed) that private military contractors may have been involved as well.
            Although both the National Guard and the media implied that the Vigilant Guard exercise was state-based, Vigilant Guard is a federally-funded exercise sponsored by US NORTHCOM that seeks to encourage and further cooperation between Federal, State, and local “emergency management” agencies and “first responders.”
            This is perhaps why the same drill took place in North Carolina as well on the same day since the training is based in terms of region. In Charlotte, military personnel practiced providing security for the Water Treatment plant while other personnel drilled on “keeping the peace.”
            Of course, few would argue that preparedness and training for emergencies on the part of government agencies, the military, or other appropriate public institutions is a bad idea. However, given the fact that these drills and training operations are clearly being used to acclimatize the general public to seeing and accepting an open military presence on the streets of the U.S., one would be justified in wondering whether or not these drills are truly designed to prepare anything other than the minds of the American people.
            Considering what happened in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the treasonous response of the National Guard there, one would certainly hope that lessons have been learned. Unfortunately, the trend of events in the United States tends to point toward more Katrina-style responses, not less.

          3. grunion says

            Chilling!!!

          4. born free says

            That’s the way they will disarm us a door at a time. Unless we get advance notification and can meet them in a group on common ground in a combined defensive stand.
            Just like the Bundy ranch stand off. If he had not had support showing to stand with him he would have been taken over by a superior force.

          5. Paul Smith says

            A few at the beginning will not get advance warning – give them your guns, there are plenty to replace them. Everybody else will know what’s going on.

          6. born free says

            I doubt that anyone will have advance warning with a full scale communications black out.
            It’s what the govt take over of the internet was all about the last piece of the civilian warning system network.
            They are now ready to move to the final phase.

          7. fearlessolotraveler says

            Mr. Smith: After “a few” of us give them our guns (despite our objections!) what do you think THEY will do with us after we’re disarmed? Hummmm? FEMA camp comes to mind!

          8. Paul Smith says

            That’s OK, you have my permission to die.

          9. fearlessolotraveler says

            Thanks, Mr. Smith. Good thing I’m not afraid to die, especially if FREEDOM is the last word I’ll ever scream!

          10. Paul Smith says

            Oh, it will be the last word I ever scream as well but it will be in the company of good men fighting for it – not shot full of holes at my front door trying to act all macho against a squad of highly armed, highly armored, stacked right troops. There’s patriotic and then there’s stupid.

          11. fearlessolotraveler says

            born free: The Bundy Ranch confrontation confirmed the US-G’s “greatest advantage” is to surprise us in our homes when they know we (as individuals) have NO back-up comparable to what the Bundy’s had (which arrived to help them only AFTER the media alerted the public concerning the incident!) Only then did people respond and push back the US-G’s subjugation efforts. Thankfully, the Bundy’s won that “battle” but from my perspective, this government continues to wage a relentless “war” against “We, the People!” What do YOU think??

            http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/has-the-obama-government-declared-war-upon-us/question-3430677/?page=1&postId=101023237#post_101023237

          12. born free says

            I think on the same lines as you.

          13. fearlessolotraveler says

            🙂

          14. born free says

            One additional thing. I believe this is the real thing but it won’t be a national martial law at first, it will be city by city and state by state. The 1200 are those that they could get to go against their constitutional oath, the traitors.

          15. fearlessolotraveler says

            born free: I’m thinking THEY have way more than 1200 if you consider the untold number of foreign troops sequestered in various States who would have no qualms shooting an American civilian OR military!

          16. born free says

            You’re probably right and UN troops have no compunctions regarding the constitution.
            Here’s the thing that makes me sure it’s the real deal.the docs state they will be operating covertly yet advertise the use of heavy equipment. How do you hide a tank or helicopter sitting in the street in a neighborhood.
            Also, they state that Texas is always supportive of military training around population centers.
            There’s nothing covert about either of those documented slip ups.

          17. Paul Smith says

            We are not limited to TV, the Internet or cell phones.

          18. fearlessolotraveler says

            Born Free (and others who are “awake!”):

            You’d better check out SonsofLibertyMedia.com then read: “Operation Jade Helm-Should You Be Concerned?” information from Chuck Baldwin posted April 2, 2015.–I see the “health and wellness” crap as a covert operation that will be publicly enforced by police/military descending on CA, NV, AZ, UT, NM, CO, TX and LA beginning (supposedly!) July, 2015.

            “The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its GOVERNMENT!
            ~Thomas Paine, Revolutionist and Founding Father.

            Heads’ up, Patriots!

          19. born free says

            That is what is being advertised as another “exercise”.
            It’s supposed to be 1200 men operating anonymously under the public eye but there will be helicopter and other equipment exercises and they will either be armed with blanks or rubber bullets in the heavier populated areas.

          20. fearlessolotraveler says

            born free: May I ask how you know “they will either be armed with blanks or rubber bullets?…” or is that comment just a supposition?

            If you were a soldier/policeman participating in that “exercise” and after being told by your superiors: The occupants of each home “may well have a loaded gun on their property,” would your weapon be loaded with blanks or rubber bullets when you knock on a door?

          21. born free says

            The exercise docs state blanks but if the intent is true martial law they will need ammo for offense but also they won’t want the world wide negative attention for civilian casualties like with China and tenemin square.

          22. fearlessolotraveler says

            born free: Do you really think this government “gives a flip” concerning “what the rest of the world thinks” about what THEY do to us? No, they don’t care! Besides, the rest of the world is just as fearful, brain-washed and subjugated by THEIR government as we are with this government! They don’t have freedom of speech anymore either!! Another point: How many people do you think complained TO CHINA about Tiananmen Square? I’m sure you get my point, Patriot!

          23. born free says

            Oh yeah I’m just trying to figure out the fly s–t truth from the pepper lies

          24. born free says

            Do you wonder if the deaths by ISIS we hear all the time are actually being commited by the resident countries govts with ISIS taking the blame?

          25. fearlessolotraveler says

            I believe ANYTHING is possible, given the endless lies and “False Flag” incidents perpetrated by this government AND the governments of other countries who “copy” the same tyrannical procedures to impoverish, enslave and subjugate their citizens which the US uses against Americans!

          26. born free says

            Very well said! We do definitely think alike.

          27. fearlessolotraveler says

            Well born free, as two of the “critical thinkers” in this blog today, I’m guessing we could already be on o’s “hit list!” Saying that just now reminds me of reading a quote recently from John D. Rockefeller, America’s first billionaire and patriarch of his mentally-deranged ilk who said: “I don’t want a nation of thinkers; I want a nation of WORKERS!” After reading that, I wondered if JDR was the monster who coined the disparaging term: “Sheeple!” to define “The American Majority!?” Nah! I still think credit for that insult goes to another monster named: Henry Kissinger!

          28. born free says

            I downloaded the “monster from jekyll island” last month but still haven’t gotten the time to read it. Not that it would matter much if July comes about like I’m afraid it will.

          29. born free says

            I found this one:
            Sheeple
            An inability to influnce one’s own opinionative thoughts, or processes, due to the overall beliefs/actions of the majority. A ‘neo-conformist’ typical in America’s society. Willful ignorance &/or apatheticness.

            A phrase originally coined by William Cooper describing the ill-informed, or dis-informed masses of individuals.

            Sheeple commonly depict these traits:

            Depravity of recognition, automatic response towards a conflict/event, unquestionable

          30. fearlessolotraveler says

            Excellent information, born free. I’m especially fond of the “Willful ignorance” bit so I’ll memorize that for future conversations. Thanks a lot and good night from western Europe!

          31. born free says

            Have a safe trip. Hope America is still here when you get back.

          32. fearlessolotraveler says

            Good morning born free and “Happy Easter!”
            Reading your comment: “Hope America is still here when you get back”…I hope so too, but I don’t want to “get back!”
            Actually, I’ve been looking for a home somewhere else since 2007 after reading G. Corsi’s “The Late Great U.S.A.” then John Perkins’ “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” and the final blow from Michelle Malkin: “Culture of Corruption”– Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies. I only read half of that; the verifiable expose’ on that many merciless, depraved monsters ruling this beautiful country is so sickening, I had to lay it down…just couldn’t stomach anymore! 🙁

          33. born free says

            Also:
            Dec 30, 2009 … … Michael Savage claimed on his radio show The Savage Nation that he had coined the term sheeple.

          34. born free says

            Rubber bullets still carry knock down capability, hurts like hell but with out squirting all over them.

          35. grunion says

            It’s their well being that should concern them when participating in illegal activities. A soldier comes to my door, at my house, unannounced, he had best approach unarmed or he will not be welcome.

          36. born free says

            Ruby ridge and the koresh compound did not result well for the defenders.

          37. grunion says

            I have a response but in an effort to remain as discreet as possible, I cannot elaborate. I will say that those poor slobs had no warning and no chance. That is not necessarily the case in my neck of the woods.

          38. Paul Smith says

            The results were not good for the offense either. State sponsored murder is still murder.

        5. Arizona Don says

          We need no permit here at all. I think I’d leave NY. Happiness is NY state in the rear view mirror! I was stationed there in the Army. Romulus

          1. Nate Opgenorth says

            Indeed…every time I hit 90 or 81 and see the state line I feel a little bit more free! Trapped here for the time being but hopefully not too much longer.

          2. Arizona Don says

            We welcome conservatives right here in Arizona. You will or would never be sorry! Just about any climate you like.

        6. Laurence Almand says

          Nate – this hassle is designed to discourage citizens from owning guns, even though organized crime can buy all the guns and ammo it wants!

          1. Nate Opgenorth says

            Indeed! The process of getting a pistol permit in my current miserable state of NY is like applying for a job in the federal government. When I applied for my Virginia non-resident permit I was shocked that for the most part it was one page (non including fingerprints and the like). Our Governor made background checks for buying any kind of ammo (although the state police haven’t figured out how to implement it because its a cluster!) and a lot of stores require you to have a pistol permit to buy any “pistol” ammunition unless you can say you have a rifle that shoots 9mm/.40S&W/.45ACP. Luckily there are a lot of gun shops that will gladly take my money without a fuss for ammo.

          2. Laurence Almand says

            Indeed. This is why there is such a huge underground trade in guns and ammo. People in NY can drive across the border to Vermont, or down to Virginia and buy all the ammo they want – and many of them do!

        7. Ron says

          Same-same for the People’s Republic of New Jersey. Trying to get a CCW in NJ is a forlorn hope.

      2. john robel says

        How do they get away with ANY taxation of rights? The right to travel is well defined, piss on a drivers “license”. Driver implies commerce. When your alleged “privilege” is suspended, your TAXES are not prorated. We have sat with our thumbs up our collective asses and allowed the despicable, to do the despicable, all under the false premise of “PUBLIC SAFETY”. Orwell was right, “big brother is watching and the pigs are running the farm”.

        1. Rattlerjake says

          The problem is that these criminals hold the power and they know it. Just as all of the Ovomit, Reid, and Hitlery scandals happen and nothing is done. I just went to court yesterday to fight a ticket, the judge REFUSED to hear part of my arguement on the grounds of commerce and right to travel, etc. She stated that commerce has nothing to do with it. She completely ignored the law. They don’t call you “guilty or not guilty” now, they call you “responsible or not responsible”.

          1. Bruce O'ryan says

            According to Thomas Jefferson, that’s EXACTLY what we are supposed to do. He said the Tree of Liberty must be pruned every generation or so with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants to keep corruption to a minimum and keep the Federal Government from getting out of the control of the People.

          2. Rattlerjake says

            We’ve gone far to long without a pruning, this tree is way too overgrown!

          3. Bruce O'ryan says

            And growing larger by the day.

          4. Joseph says

            No Thomas Jefferson actually said that the tree of liberty needed to be watered with the blood of tyrannts and patriots to ensure that the government never got out of hand. Truth be told even our first president went against his own words when he helped put down the Whiskey Rebellion. So you see just a little bit of power corrupted even the father of our nation. Its time to get government and the judiciary out of our rights. They don’t have the right to limit that which is enshrined in the bill of rights. Those aren’t granted to us by the government but are specifically required to ensure that they are granted a x protected. No where does it say only if no one disagrees or isn’t offended want my guns come take them! I swore an oath in 1979 to protect the country and the constitution from all enemies FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Guess what………IT HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE! I am still bound by that oath and wrote a check to my country for up too and including my life if need be. I live it and breathnit daily. Theremwill come a day when all patrotkc Americans will be called upon to defend our way of life. Which side will you be on? I think you know where I will be.

          5. grunion says

            And it is coming much more quickly than imaginable.

          6. Bruce O'ryan says

            I too took an oath in 1975. I think you know where I’ll be as well, Brother.

          7. Joseph says

            Yep, where the action is. Loaded for bear and highly pissed.

          8. Bruce O'ryan says

            Ditto. I’ll stand with you when the time comes. It would be an honor.

          9. OldPatriot32 says

            Someone needs to start a movement in that direction; wish I were 40 yrs. younger!

          10. Rattlerjake says

            It’s like sex, you’re never too old. Hey, if I have to get a motorized wheelchair I’ll install a rifle scabbard and rifle rest on it so I can still help out! Put ceramic plates in the seat back, mount a shitload of magazine pouches on it, what ever I need to do to participate.

          11. grunion says

            Right! Never too old to fight for your freedom and the freedom of those you hold dear! Never!

          12. LastGasp says

            Wouldn’t the cherry trees in D.C. be wonderfully enhanced with several score of complicit, crony politicians doing the tip-toe waltz amidst the pink blossoms?

          13. herman flippen says

            Definitely tiptoe===give them time to realize the error of their ways!!!!

          14. grunion says

            Would make a lovely watercolor…

          15. Nate Opgenorth says

            Well one reason to be happy is good ol’ “Dirty Harry” isn’t going to be around much longer and Hillary is getting really tangled in the email scandal. I can only hope a Special Prosecutor goes after her….I mean they went after General Patraeus, he’s a freaking hero and awesome dude and what he did is nothing compared to what Killary has done!

        2. born free says

          You are exactly and absolutely correct.
          That’s what I mean about the states infringing on our natural rights.
          Some trivia for you.
          Karl Bend had the very first drivers license in the world in 1908 in Germany
          His neighbors were always complaining about the noise so he petitioned the govt to award him a license so that he would have the RIGHT To drive his car. It was downhill around the world from there.
          Thanks Karl for screwing the rest of the world out of the RIGHT to travel and not have to have a drivers license.

          1. grunion says

            Damn Germans…

          2. born free says

            Damn American liberals taking us down the same road.

      3. Combatvet52 says

        Well said Rattler

      4. OldPatriot32 says

        If NC requires a permit just to buy a gun, that’s news to me. Looking into that.

        1. Nate Opgenorth says

          From how my buddy explains it you need a “buyers permit” for handguns that you get at the county sheriff’s office for a small fee…don’t agree with it but I believe thats how it is. If you have an NC carry permit you don’t need to do that but there are some folks from NC on here that probably know the process all to well

          1. Rattlerjake says

            I am living in NC (for 20+ years). You are required to purchase, from the sheriff’s dept., a $5 permit to be able to buy a handgun (you can purchase 5 permits at a time; that may have changed). This is whether you buy the handgun from a dealer, at auction, or from a private source. They will even tell you that the “law” also doesn’t allow for purchasing out of state and bringing it back. These are perfect examples of unlawful and unconstitutional laws. Yet NC is a state that has NO requirements for open carry; it’s perfectly legal, always has been – but for conceal carry you must attend a conceal carry course (for a fee), and must pay a $95 fee for a five year permit to carry I don’t believe that there is a separate basic gun safety course requirement as davidfromfairviewpa claims).

          2. Nate Opgenorth says

            Thanks for the details. I don’t like the idea of permits in general but what doesn’t make sense is permits expiring every 5 years….what happens if you get caught carrying on an expired permit? I bet in a few states you get charged with unlawful possession instead of what would make more sense just a ticket for a minor violation. In NY State pistol permits are life time, although starting in 2016 or 2017 they will be 5 year limits. One county volunteered to test out the system early and then the sheriff encouraged everyone to attend a bonfire and burn their renewal papers 😀 I understand that its about revenue but someones right expiring is like insult to injury for having to pay for a right to begin with.

        2. davidfromfairviewpa says

          You can only buy a handgun in North Carolina with a sheriff issued temporary buyers permit after applying and paying an outrageous fee. If you take a basic gun safety course, than take a concealed carry course, each costing $75 to $125, then paying a fee of $95 and waiting six weeks for an appointment to be interviewed by the sheriff’s office, then waiting an additional 21 to 45 days, you can get a North Carolina Concealed Carry Permit that is good for fiver years.

      5. BH says

        What it is going to take is an African-American to file a lawsuit claiming discrimination for forcing him to pay a tax to buy a gun (kind of like the poll tax issue).

        1. Rattlerjake says

          There is NO SUCH ANIMAL as an african-American, only libturds created and recognize that term. They are either African or they are American. Negro-American or black American is suitable.

          1. Paul Smith says

            Actually, a person born on US soil of African native parents is truly an African-American – like Obama.

          2. Mark Lahti says

            And that has not occurred in such a long time that it is a moot point. I met my first truly African-American a few years ago. She was a blue-eyed, blonde haired, white as snow female from South Africa. She came here as a student and was in the process of completing her citizenship ritual to become an American citizen. As I was so amazed at her story and the fact that she was truly an African-American, I asked her if she realized that fact. She too was surprised and amused when she realized it and said “yes, I believe you’re right, I am an African-American”. I have yet to meet anyone else personally that fit that description.

          3. Paul Smith says

            In other words she was NOT an African-American. . .yet.

            Hopefully she won’t run for the presidency as Obama did.

          4. Mark Lahti says

            Well as I said, that was a few years ago so yes I believe she is.

          5. Rattlerjake says

            Actually she was NOT African-American. She was an African, in America, UNTIL she completes her naturalization, then she is “considered” AMERICAN. Naturalized citizens take an oath of allegiance to America to become a citizen, if they want to be known as hyphenated Americans then they need not be naturalized and go back to where they came from.

          6. LastGasp says

            You don’t know where he was born. You apparently don’t know his alleged mother was white. You also don’t know that his father was Arab and African or you wouldn’t have made that stupid and untrue comparison.

          7. Rattlerjake says

            Bullshiite! Hyphenated labels were created by the left to cause further separatism and dissension in this county; they need to create the atmosphere that these groups of people are in someway “special” and deserve more attention. How do you even know who is of African descent? Because they are black? Wrong! There are more arabs and white Africans than black Africans, as well, many of the “blacks” in this country are Haitian or Caribbean (what are they, Haitian-African-American?), and even Mexican. This hyphenation label is bullshiite, and you have bought into it.

          8. Nate Opgenorth says

            When people ask what I am I say American…I wish that trend would follow more.

        2. Nate Opgenorth says

          I could see that happening but here is something to think about. Liberals act like they own the minority opinion and to a certain extent they do since minorities let liberals speak on their behalf without ever complaining. Tons of minorities grow up in inner city’s where they see violence and see people who NEVER take responsibility for their actions…then the liberal blames the violence on the guns and people who have never taken responsibility for themselves follow suit, its easier to point the finger at anything but yourself. If you go on YouTube look up “Colion Noir”, he has his own YouTube channel and speaks about gun rights and works for the NRA, the fact that he is Black aggravates liberals so much they tried to discredit him as fake or an uncle tom or insane…he brought up the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a carry permit and was denied and a bunch of liberals went crazy over it because it didn’t fit in line with their views on Dr. King….

      6. Keith Allison says

        You hit that nail right on the head about the criminal elements in our government offices. It makes no difference, bureaucrat, politician or whatever, not all, but the vast majority of them are as corrupt as anything you will find roaming the streets of a city.

      7. Kurt Moore says

        It is easy for a law abiding citizen to purchase a gun in NC. I live just outside of Fort Bragg and it took me 1 day and a gun safety class to get a CCP that allows me to purchase 1 gun a day if I so desire. If you don’t want get a CCP, a buyers permit allows you purchase 1 gun a day but you are not authorized to conceal carry your guns. You ARE permitted to open carry anywhere except for places like the Court Room, they search for any weapons at all, even sword canes. For the most part this state is very gun friendly. The police and sheriffs are gun friendly to LEGAL gun carry (criminals and illegal aliens need not bother to apply as they are NOT allowed to own or carry firearms), most of them I’ve talked to prefer citizens to pack as it is viewed as a form of protection.

        1. Rattlerjake says

          The discussion was not whether it was easy but whether it was lawful or Constitutional, which the laws are NOT. Those laws infringe on the right to bear arms. If, for example, I meet someone who wants to sell me a (legal) handgun on a weekend, I can’t get a permit until Monday or Tuesday, if I don’t already have one. So then the guy sells the weapon to someone else because he needed the money or just wanted to get rid of that weapon. It is an INFRINGEMENT for the federal government or state to require payment or “permission” in the form of a permit to exercise your rights, easy or not! Buy the way, I live in Eastover!

      8. Laddyboy says

        The State of Maryland, “The Free State”, also requires you to pay a fee to get a “Handgun Qualification Permit” before you can buy a handgun. This is an INFRINGEMENT of OUR Constitutional RIGHT.

      9. Ray Williams says

        Conservatives should argue that these permits are racist, just like the progressives do for voter ID.

    2. born free says

      Which makes a Concealed Carry permit also an illegal infringement, not to mention registration and back ground checks and any fees charged for for the government to process those methods.

      1. Paul Smith says

        Correct.

    3. Obie Miller says

      Amen! Me too.

    4. vespo08 says

      Tampa Bay Times is one of the first who would hide behind the First Amendment – Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. I guess they feel it’s ok to pick and choose the Amendments “they” are in support of. Brilliance of our Founders, they anticipated a government out of control and incrementally eroding American’s Rights. Maybe the courts should reconsider media’s use of Free Speech and tell them Freedom of the Press is not absolute?

  3. MILES E DRAKE says

    The ongoing contrived furore about the Religious Protection laws are nothing but an attempt to extend to the First Amendment the treatment being administered to the Fourth Amendment by NSA surveillance, police federalization and militarization and internet control, and to the Second Amendment by these Marxists and mollycoddles. The Chicom-Soros puppet regime now controlling this country wants the same kind of dictatorship here as in the African and Asian countries its quisling master knew growing up, and these countries have derisory constitutions and no Bill of Rights.

    1. Tom S says

      I thank you for mentioning Soros in your post. These false prophets of prosperity will face the kind of judgement most people can’t imagine. There is much more power from above than there is from beneath. And they are way under!

  4. USPatriotOne says

    I hold a JD and have performed and in-depth study of the 2nd Amendment, and I have said this time and time again, ALL GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE ILLEGAL ON THERE FACE….PERIOD..!!! These Commie/Liberals do not have a legal leg to stand on and all these States, along with the Feds, have NO legal standing or right to withhold any Weapon or Ammo from the American People! That’s why our founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so plainly and clear, “Shall Not Be Infringed” so there would not be any miss understanding to their intent, which again, MAKES ALL GUN CONTROL LAWS ILLEGAL ON THERE FACE! “We the People” have to put a stop to all these illegal Laws stealing our Rights and we need to start with the 2nd Amendment….No 2nd Amendment and all the rest of our Constitutional Rights go right out the window! God help us, PLEASE!

    1. EMIRCITNA says

      WHEN the wrong people get voted into political power by uninformed voters they will create and enact laws that they KNOW are unconstitutional BUT also know that if THE PEOPLE ACCEPT those laws without loud challenge that those unconstitutional laws will ….REMAIN LAWS!!!

      1. alphinostrum says

        —low information voters are that way because it takes a degree of effort to become ‘informed’ on what you’re voting on.

        1. Nate Opgenorth says

          You actually don’t even need low information voters, well I mean you do but what really helps is when you promise them a plethora of handouts without working and/or good reasons. I overheard a conversation of some lady with her son talking about how her goal was to get all her kids on social security so they could “live the American dream”…you know free of obligations to work for that! She literally talked about all the BS reasons to get them on SS!

      2. Pete says

        Here is one of the problems We get to vote for who we are told to vote for A Democrat or a Republican , Chosen by the party to do what the party wants done . Kind of a heads you lose , tails we win . Politicians want to stay in power maintain the flow . no rocking their boat . The Second amendment includes rocking the boat . .

        1. ussacitizen says

          The parties are just opposite sides of the same counterfeit coin. The masses of sheeple just go with the flow, in most cases “news” predicts a winner and they vote for the perceived winner, human nature not wanting to be on the loosing side. It’s long past time we forget about who the press says can’t win and vote conscience instead of the lesser of two evils.

          1. Pete says

            A true tragedy>>> Drink the least toxic poison.

          2. Paul Smith says

            NEGATIVE!! Vote third party or don’t vote at all. Don’t pick the lesser of evils because you’re still supporting evil.

          3. born free says

            Very good.
            But some of the qualified conservatives partisan themselves because they know they have a better chance as republican than independent i.e. Rand Paul

          4. Paul Smith says

            The definition of stupid – doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Paul will not, can not restore the Constitution.

          5. born free says

            But says that he wants to do so. He’s a libertarian like his father

          6. Paul Smith says

            I would be cautiously optimistic to see Paul gain the presidency however a.) I do not believe that he has a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected and b.) seriously doubt that he will manage to do anything of significance if he does (too much outside pressure/control).

          7. born free says

            He tries very hard to accomplish changes like “audit the fed” and fighting the move to a national/ federal ID.
            I sign petitions by him all the time.

          8. Paul Smith says

            As do I and they all come to naught. THAT is the point. I believe he’s a good man. I believe that he would like to reduce regulation and taxes. I believe that he would like to reduce the power of the POTUS. I’d like to give him a try. And while I support him, I don’t, unfortunately, believe that he has any better chance of being elected than did his father.

          9. born free says

            True but I’m not willing to give up on him and have to resort to supporting Cruz, Rubio, etc by default. I’m sorry but I just don’t trust them as much as I do Rand.

          10. Bruce O'ryan says

            Perhaps if everyone voted for themselves….what message would that send? Can;t vote “No Confidence”

          11. OldPatriot32 says

            A 3rd party vote at this time is a wasted vote with no effect, history shows.
            What needs to be formed is a party composed of the 20% left of center and 20% to the right. That 40% would offset the extremists by 10 %, and put the People With a Brain (moderates) in power, to take back the nation from the idiots currently running the show. Independents must reach out to these 2 groups, if they’re ever to make progress toward governing the nation.

          12. born free says

            That’s the term “the tail wagging the dog”

        2. EMIRCITNA says

          ….THEN….sinking it!!!

        3. born free says

          Sorry Pete to correct you but it’s actually “heads you lose, tails you lose”

          1. Rattlerjake says

            That’s what he said! Read HOW he wrote it!

          2. born free says

            Oh yeah you’re right, lol, trying to read the news on my first cup of coffee 😮

          3. EMIRCITNA says

            The original format to that old saying is: ‘Heads I/we win ~ Tails you lose’!

          4. born free says

            I finished my coffee and pulled the post lol

        4. Tricia Anthone says

          You just nailed it! Reliance on elections alone – as a sole recourse has only entrenched the power-brokers at the top of each party – Washington-centric and hell bent on consolidating power.
          Article V offers a way to BRING POWER HOME via a Convention of the States for proposing Amendments. NO MATTER WHAT restraints are placed on Federal Power via this process – Balanced Budget, Debt Relief Act, Term Limits or all of the above – that will serve to TRANSFER power out of Washington and GIVE STATES grater influence. Is that a good thing? Look at the composition of the State Legislatures. Look also at the foundational principle of our Constitution: DIVIDED power.
          We need to get back to the original idea of 50 sovereign states – lost when the States lost their representation in Congress (17th Amendment).
          ALL RIGHTS are safest in our OWN HANDS. POWER is ALWAYS less dangerous when DIVIDED. These are the fundamentals of our Constitutional Republic. Get back to them and we’ll find it a lot easier to defend the natural rights of the people.
          http://www.ConventionOfStates.com

          1. born free says

            Not a good thing.
            Example
            Indiana freedom of religion act.
            Why do we need a state act to back up the 1st Ammendment. Just enforce the 1st Ammendment

          2. Tricia Anthone says

            We are being forcibly transformed from the United States of America to the Uniform States of America. Most people have lost sight of the fact that CONSOLIDATED power is the enemy of all liberty.
            If we FAIL to restore the Constitutional balance – the states operating as a barrier to Federal encroachment, the resulting consolidation will strip away all of the rights we have – not by Amendment process, but via the process that is PRESENTLY underway and accelerating: Populist appeals to the ignorant become unconstitutional laws from Congress which are rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court and are then implemented by a regulatory beast with zero accountability. NONE of it subjected to the deliberative process, even though it serves to actively OPPOSE our Constitution. There is no quick fix. We MUST re-balance the power by re-asserting the power of the State Legislatures.

          3. Paul Smith says

            And to do that we must repeal the 16th and the 22nd Amendments.

          4. Tricia Anthone says

            I’m down with repealing 16. Why 22?

          5. Paul Smith says

            The 22nd took States’ representation from them. The Constitution was written to give the States a voice in Washington.

          6. Tricia Anthone says

            16 authorizes taxation on income
            22 fixes the # terms of the president at 2.
            I don’t see how either have much to do with taking States’ power. Were you thinking of 17 – which causes the Senate to be popularly elected rather than being delegates of (and responsive to) the State Legislatures? This one absolutely stripped the States of their voice in Congress .
            Article V is the ONLY remaining voice for the States – and it only functions if we CALL one. That requires that 34 States pass a resolution in support of calling a Convention for a particular, uniform purpose.
            Convention of States project is seeking to get the states to unify on a call for an Article V Convention under the uniform purpose of CONSTRAINING Federal power.
            http://www.ConventionOfStates.com

          7. born free says

            My problem with state legislation is the by passing of our rights by the states passing laws to supersede the constitution.
            Ex. The right to travel guaranteed by the pursuit of life liberty and happiness.
            Initially drivers licenses were implemented to regulate commerce on our roads, i.e. taxis, limos, freight, etc.
            But the states saw easy money in convincing the populace that the right to travel and move your possessions from place to place should be a privilege instead of a right. Hence licensing and registration to be able to operate a motor vehicle or conveyance.

          8. Paul Smith says

            Then go fix it. The whole point to having our laws made at the State level rather than the Federal is that the closer the government is to the people it affects, the greater the control over it by the people. Form an organization, recruit others who believe as you do and get the law changed.

          9. born free says

            I try to “fix it” all the time.
            I call and write my representatives almost weekly but I’m just one person and can’t force others to do the same but I strongly recommend that everyone including those that post in these forums do so as well.

          10. Tricia Anthone says

            But here’s the key: State Legislatures can ONLY make laws in ONE state. Some go this way, others go that way. The FEDERAL Government makes laws for the WHOLE country. So WHICH is more dangerous? Even when State governments do something stupid, one can get out. It’s possible for the natural consequences of their action to BE FELT. When that same behavior is engaged by the NAtional government, there is NO effective recourse. SO the law isn’t going to get changed.
            It’s not that anyone thinks politicians are better at the state level. But two huge factors make STATE governments less dangerous to liberty:
            1. They are closer to the PEOPLE who then have better access.
            2. People can more easily LEAVE when a state becomes tyrannical. California is losing people and businesses because of its draconian anti-business measures. There is reason to believe that will eventually cycle back because the IMPACT of stupid may be felt.
            Picture this – what if Congress were required to obtain CONSENT from the States on laws that have economic impact of a given level or more? Or the Consent of the States were required to raise the debt ceiling.
            Picture the SHIFT in power that EITHER of those measures would cause – if CONGRESS were required to seek CONSENT from the State legislatures on their imperial edicts, we’d have prevented intrusive and costly federal background checks, O’Care, environmental Nazi edicts and more. POWER would once again be DIVIDED rather than consolidated.

          11. Paul Smith says

            Return States’ representatives to the Senate and that is exactly what happens, Tricia.

          12. Tricia Anthone says

            Totally agree. Doing that requires a repeal of the 17th amendment – to restore the Senate as a body of delegates from the State Legislatures. Congress is not going to propose that – They are well served by DENYING the States any representation in Congress. So the only way to get it done is thru an Article V Convention.

          13. born free says

            There is also the precedence of one state starting something and the rest quickly following.
            Ex. Repealing so do my laws. Then twisting marriage.
            What one state starts the rest soon follow.
            The Fed is in place to guarantee our God given rights which should bar the states to violate them.

          14. OldPatriot32 says

            Problem: (already in existence) one state bans guns and concealed carry, and its neighbor(s) allow it, under varying conditions. The right to bear arms openly or concealed should be legal Nationally. all 50 states and US possessions (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. Problem solved.

          15. Nate Opgenorth says

            Well it snowballs! One state follows anothers trend. After Sandy Hook NY was the first to bring crazy legislation even before Connecticut could think of anything! Then CT, MD, etc. followed that trend and their politicians cited the NY SAFE Act as “inspiration”.

          16. Tricia Anthone says

            I agree with you OldPatriot32!
            However – unless we COUNTER-BALANCE the power of the Fed USING the POWER of the Sovereign States we will get more of what we’re getting: further ERROSION of our liberties at the hands of the central government. Power Undivided is power unchecked. We must first BRING POWER HOME.
            I recognize that we’ll see different states doing different things with that power. Ask yourself where your voice has the greater chance of being heard – with your State legislature or with the National government?
            If we’re unwilling to allow the states their sovereignty, then there will be no check on the power of the central government. Unchecked central has never failed to disarm its citizens.

          17. Nate Opgenorth says

            ‘Tis is the struggle of Government since existence….**sighs**

          18. ipsd48 says

            Because of OTHER ‘laws’ and judicial activism subverting the constitution

        5. cvxxx says

          So right! Americans need to become more involved in the grassroots political processes. Many avoid the primaries then complain about the quality of the candidates.

          1. Reddler says

            very true

          2. Paul Smith says

            The candidates, the primaries AND the general are highly scripted, organized and controlled as are the results. You, my friend, get the pleasure of pulling a lever and nothing more. You vote for the candidate they choose.

          3. cvxxx says

            Yes however, it is possible to vote on primaries and it is possible to get a non establishment candidate elected. When we do not even try, we let ourselves down.

          4. Paul Smith says

            You go ahead and believe that if you like and you go ahead and believe that it would make a difference. I don’t.

    2. alphinostrum says

      —-the second amendment always appeared to me to be rather plainly stated and meant what it said.

    3. dickG says

      I thought “Infringed was what was on top of the surrey. No?
      .
      My “open carry travel” arm.
      .

      1. EMIRCITNA says

        HATE to pay your ammo bill, my friend!

      2. Average_Joe56 says

        Say hello to my leetle friend!
        😉

    4. michael boyd says

      What is a JD? It must not have anything to do with grammar because I think you meant ‘THEIR’ not ‘THERE’ 😉

      1. born free says

        Justice Degree

        1. Keith Allison says

          J.D. is a Juris Doctorate

          1. born free says

            Thanks I forgot the “?”

      2. Rightleaning says

        You should review the grammar manual. “Their” refers to a person, ‘there’ as used by the JD is correct.

        1. michael boyd says

          ‘their’ is a possessive pronoun which is what should be used in his sentence as structured. Example: this is their house, car, boat etc.
          ‘there’ can mean a location as in ‘don’t go there’ or ‘there it is’.
          If I am wrong, please point me to a resource that backs up your assertion.

      3. don76550 says

        When you cannot argue the merits or the facts then you resort to asinine crap like michael boyd does.

        1. michael boyd says

          Look, who said I disagreed? I am in full agreement…any law restricting my right to acquire, keep and bear arms regardless of its level of technological sophistication is de facto anti-constitutional. Additionally, name calling and profanity only demonstrates a true lack civility and thoughtful argumentation. I just don’t like our side to look like a bunch of illiterate bumpkins. Something wrong with that?

    5. Paul Pray says

      once the ability to rebel is gone, the 4th amendment and 1st amendment is gone at the same time, there will be nothing you can do or say to change things, at that point the state is in charge and your considered an enemy of the state….always with suspicion for treason against said state.
      Like, innocent until proven guilty, in this case your just guilty without any cause.
      Yes I agree whole heartedly…..by the way, this problem with criminals and guns would solve itself in about a couple of months.

      1. born free says

        Once the ability to rebel or redress grievances is gone ALL rights are gone.

        1. Paul Pray says

          Totally agree, but what I have a question? Who do we shoot?

          1. born free says

            At this point anyone who needs it.
            But if it goes much longer we’ll be down to “who do we club”

          2. Paul Smith says

            Is it necessary to shoot anyone – yet? Honor the Constitution. Support those outfits who are trying to enforce it like the 10th Amendment Center and the GOA and fija. Don’t vote – it validates an invalid and evil system. And PLEASE don’t support another ineligible candidate like Jindal, Cruz or Rubio.

        2. Paul Smith says

          One of the fallacies of the Constitution – you can PETITION for redress of grievances but nothing says that you’ll get relief – and you won’t.

          1. born free says

            Very true. It’s a right but doesn’t mean it won’t work out wrong.

          2. Paul Smith says

            The government will ‘give’ you what they wish to give you and it will be in their best interest, not yours.

          3. born free says

            “A government by the people and for the people” has been subverted to “a people by the government and for the government”

          4. Paul Smith says

            Correct and we must get it back if we are to survive as a constitutional Republic.

    6. Les says

      REMEMBER THE MILLION MAN MARCH……WE NEED ANOTHER MARCH ….REALLY SOON

    7. OldPatriot32 says

      Their face, not there face

  5. hangman57 says

    Maybe the Tampa paper never read the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution .

  6. EMIRCITNA says

    THE SECOND AMENDMENT really should have been the FIRST amendment in importance and the First Amendment in second place, seeing that the Second Amendment is the last resort protection for not only ALL of the Amendments but also the entire U.S. Constitution!

    (Tampa Bay Times…..are they STILL in business???!)

    1. hangem'high says

      Al-jazeer is still alive and well!

  7. ussacitizen says

    Tampa is full of transplants from NY and NJ so it’s about what you can expect. They made their home states unfit to live in, then they move here and try to make it like home, electing the same types of clowns that made the northeast unfit to live in. If they think the laws “back home” were so much better they should just go back and leave the south alone!

    1. EMIRCITNA says

      SOUNDS like the Muslim’s agenda for America in total!!!

    2. draidt says

      Let’s not throw a blanket indictment on ALL NY and NJ transplants, I am a transplant from NJ and left 20 years ago and one of the main reason’s is what you are describing of the liberal northeast mind set..

      1. ussacitizen says

        As always there are a few exceptions to the rule.

        1. Nate Opgenorth says

          I’d say in NY State there are more than a few exceptions, by NY State I mean Upstate though. I think if any state should split NY should. Cut NYC off east of the hudson and call it a day.

    3. true american says

      Thats why I left the Tmpa bay area & Fl for the LAST time the stupid Dem O Crap librals screwed up a nice state.

    4. brabbie2002 says

      Sounds like Washington State and the scumbums from California. Now, I moved to get away from the libtards!

      1. hangem'high says

        In a lot of aspects they are from these states spreading their policies, like you they moved!

        1. brabbie2002 says

          Yes, I moved, but I appreciate my new state and am committed to keeping her conservative and red! I didn’t come here to change their policies and laws. I came to uphold and abide by them!!!

          1. hangem'high says

            Well, I believe everyone deserves choices; I just resent the individuals that thinks everyone should change to fit their utopia as in, fundamental change or be like their last state of residence,
            I wish you best in your pursuit of happiness!

          2. Paul Smith says

            What ‘choices’ are you talking about? You have a choice not to keep and bear arms. That’s your choice.

    5. hangem'high says

      All local, state, and federal governments are infested with out of state legislature that gets elected to make laws for that community or state. If you would do a little research you’d find most of your law makers are not born in the state but came to the states after graduating collage for the sole purpose of becoming a resident to run for government. So you’ll eventually have California born residents making regulation on resources in Alaska and Utah in favor of say; California or Oregon we have a little of this already happening with SS marriage, Gun control and it’s all legal!

      1. Nate Opgenorth says

        You’ve got a good point…I always found it weird when Governors of states for example spent most of their life in another state. I mean it is the UNITED States but there should be more requirements for some of these political positions as sometimes I feel politicians travel to wherever they can get a seat as a senator or congressmen or whatever and do not care about the actual community.

        1. hangem'high says

          Or when they retire or get ousted they move to a different state for a second chance, or to their true home state. It just urks me when someone from say; New York gets elected to Alabama to regulate that state or Virginia even south Dakoda kind of reminds me of the union running a company man to represent the workers!

      2. Rattlerjake says

        You’re wrong on the “it’s all legal” part. And they will soon find out that they have far overstepped their authority!

        1. hangem'high says

          Before or after they sign away the state’s water rights, grazing, gun, or others rights most of the time it’s handed over to the federal goverment, I hope you’re right!

    6. OldPatriot32 says

      Since WW2 ended, liberals/progressives from the northern and northeast states have invaded the Sun Belt from Florida to Mexifornia, homogenizing the nation, and tipping voting ratios in favor of the Left. Only states like Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho & Montana have resisted politically, but Montana is fast losing its conservative base as more & more liberal Californians arrive. Oregon, Washington & New Mexico are long lost to liberalism.

  8. draidt says

    The Tampa Bay Times is a Liberal rag and is owned by The New York Times nuf said ? I dropped my subscription when they endorsed the great imposter in 2008

    1. Robert Young says

      Good move. Hit them in the pocketbook. Enough people cancel and the parent company will cause change. Might at least get a new Editor.

  9. Robyn Goldstein says

    Dear Keith- a more perfect union suggests otherwise. u have not done your homework as to what the constitution really means. Franklin was a scientist-at-large and his contribution was not of judgments of value or ultimate values, but of the real side of a bit of liberty and justice for all. Guns require regulation. Not everyone should be able to own one. We live together and in peace by rules & regs. There are no ulimate rights, but legitimate rights granted to us here in the US. Those college kids in Kenya did not deserve to die for want of an education and better life through it. Think about it!

    1. EMIRCITNA says

      SAME goes with any MOTOR VEHICLE! ~ More people have been killed in traffic accidents than guns have ever killed!

    2. Average_Joe56 says

      ” u have not done your homework as to what the constitution really means.”

      Obviously, it is you that doesn’t understand the US Constitution.

      You are either, liberal or retarded…which is it? Both?

      THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

      by J. Neil Schulman

      If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan,
      right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call
      would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call
      if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning
      of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?

      That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los
      Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton
      Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the
      foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr.
      Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor
      of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of
      “American Usage and Style: The Consensus.”

      A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s
      expertise.

      Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades
      before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at
      USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the
      professional aspects of journalism for “Editor and Publisher”, a weekly
      magazine focusing on the journalism field.

      He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam
      Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s
      fifth book on usage, “American Usage and Style: The Consensus,” has been in
      continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner
      of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.

      That sounds like an expert to me.

      After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced
      myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent
      the following letter:

      “I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in
      English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United
      States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

      “The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘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.’

      “The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the
      sentence, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
      free State’, is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect
      to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, ‘the
      right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

      “I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into
      consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted
      entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further,
      since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation
      regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever
      analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to
      stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under
      oath to support, if necessary.”

      My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment,
      then concluded:

      “I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task
      with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is
      vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment.
      While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of
      its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.”

      After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for
      his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our
      opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political
      subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have
      inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

      [Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
      security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your
      letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a
      clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is
      followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb
      ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
      maintaining a militia.

      “In reply to your numbered questions:

      [Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep
      and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

      [Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear
      arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by
      others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect
      to a right of the people.”

      [Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted
      by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a
      preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state
      that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

      [Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence
      is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be
      preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

      [Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms
      conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact
      necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not
      existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
      shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

      [Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to
      keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence
      of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the
      right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated
      militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep
      and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

      [Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary
      to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place
      conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such
      right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”

      [Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as
      previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the
      militia.”

      [Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated
      militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’
      ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

      [Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior
      authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian
      control over the military.”

      [Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the
      changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200
      years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the
      intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”

      [Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the
      meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
      amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a
      well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the
      right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’

      [Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also
      appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second
      Amendment to the following sentence,

      “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
      State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
      infringed.’

      “My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

      “(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way
      the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?;
      and

      “(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people
      to keep and read Books’ _only_ to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for
      example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

      [Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the
      amendment in grammatical structure.

      “(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the
      possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

      Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his
      cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative
      efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach
      any conclusion.”

      So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what
      many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally
      protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all
      governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

      As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the
      Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that
      part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the
      old guard’s desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

      And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed
      officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States
      ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely.
      American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning
      arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements
      regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an
      abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms,
      guaranteed by the Constitution.

      And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the
      rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

      it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to
      preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our
      elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding
      them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who
      decide that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means but
      means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ?

      Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution
      of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend
      that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor ?

    3. Rattlerjake says

      It’s idiots with your thinking that INTERPRET the Constitution, instead of taking it for what it actually says. “Legitimate rights”?, Where does the Constitution say that? I remember it saying UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. And who do you think should regulate rights? Oh, government elitist criminals who are doing that regulation now? Of course you do, you are one of the hopeless government dependent morons that need a “nanny” to dictate your every move!

    4. Robert Young says

      I am not Kieth, but I have thought about it and believe neither guns nor gun ownership require regulation in America. Any adult American Citizen should be able to own one if he or she so chooses. That being said, I must add the use of a gun must be regulated. That is why we have Criminal Laws. Any PERSON using a gun in an unlawful act should be arrested, tried in Court, and, if found guilty, punished as the Law prescribes.

    5. Paul Smith says

      It’s a damn shame those kids in Kenya weren’t properly armed as those in Israel are.

    6. hangem'high says

      You can’t have peace without force to maintain it. Eliminate force you eliminate peace, eliminate individual rights and you have killing fields. As with that idea comes getting everyone to think alike,
      you can’t get everyone to think alike without cleansing!

  10. LARRY JOHNSON says

    Guns better be a right because Obama has imported Isis terrorist groups into every major city- Citizens only protection will be there guns-There will be no help from obama -isis is waiting for orders- From who- maybe Obama

  11. Chris Benavides says

    People need to wake up to the realtity of the fact that if something is not done soon, no one will be able to do anything later. I hate these liberal snobs trying to cram issue after issue down my throat and supposed to grin a bear it. It’s either the COS passes and amends the constitution in an effort to start the change or bloody revolution. Either way I’m good with. I love this country and is hate to have to fight it but I fought in Iraq to oust idiots and I can do it here to keep the oath I took to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies. FORIEGN AND DOMESTIC!

    1. Kenny Coffman says

      Thanks for your service to OUR country and also for being an oath KEEPER.

    2. Robert Young says

      You will not be standing alone.Most of our retired or out of service Vets will be there.Those who have seen War know how bloody and dirty it is and those who have dealt with Politicians know how dirty, two-faced, and sleazy many of them are. God, Family, Country, and Constitution must be upheld.

    3. hangem'high says

      Fundamental change is supposed to hurt!

  12. Keith Allison says

    Well Rattlesnake, I am a paralegal, and as far as our judicial system is concerned, from what I’ve seen of it in the State of Washington, it is more corrupt than the criminal element. Here, it is not unusual for a judge to apparently be bought off and his/her lawsuit being tossed out the back door of the Courthouse with no explanation or reason behind the judges method of controlling his/her case load.

    1. Rattlerjake says

      Is that not what I said? Or are you agreeing, can’t tell by your wording.

      1. hangem'high says

        Mirrored after Mexico or is it Mexico mirrored after the USA, I’ll let you decide!

    2. hangem'high says

      It’s a good thing we got something back from Mexico after that social security buy out, pay backs a bit- ch!

  13. Raymond Olshefski says

    After having read some of the comments here regarding this article in the Tampa Bay Chronicle I can only say that if the 2nd Amendment goes then so goes the Freedom of Speech which is also guaranteed in the Constitution. If that goes then the Tampa Bay Chronicle will be out of business because their freedom of speech shall also be infringed upon.

    1. hangem'high says

      The constitution is a house of cards once one card is pulled the whole thing comes down
      The constitution is under attack around this nation, it’s not just in Tampa!
      That’s what happens when you mess with “In God we trust!”

      1. Raymond Olshefski says

        You are exactly right on both issues!

  14. Bud44 says

    Ignore unconstitutional laws. Do whatever you have to do and keep it to yourself. If you don’t tell anyone what you are doing they can’t tell on you.

    1. Paul Smith says

      If everybody wore open carry all the time, there would be little that the government could do about it. Note the reaction to open carry during protest gatherings — none. It’s time we stopped talking and started doing.

  15. James Andrews says

    Another clueless, left wing editor, making false claims. What else is knew?

    1. hangem'high says

      I wonder if the editor was also a constitution scholar?

      1. James Andrews says

        Me too!

  16. alphinostrum says

    —-I sometimes think liberals can’t read. Possibly they don’t read what they should before standing in critical view of what they haven’t read, don’t understand or really don’t give a damn about except for the “party line”.

    1. jim scofield says

      The Communist Party line.

  17. Morton212 says

    A little research into the politics behind the Second Amendment in fact sheds a lot of light as to whyit exists at all – and because it is a very uncomfortable series of events – it is rarely discussed by gun advocates. But a little checking will substantiate the facts given in these references :

    http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
    and
    http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/01/was-second-amendment-adopted-slaveholders

    1. mac12sam12 says

      I hear you Mort, if it wasn’t for my guns the slaves would have been long gone.

      1. Morton212 says

        … and now that the slaves are armed – they would have to face a modern army if they ever decided that the government was tyrannical

        1. Paul Smith says

          The government IS tyrannical. Are you not paying attention?

          1. Morton212 says

            Oh ! You’re just having a bad hair day. You need to take a vacation to Saudi Arabia or even Moscow to understand tyranny.

          2. Paul Smith says

            You break laws every day that could put you in a federal penitentiary. If you believe that we do not live under tyranny, you’re a fool.

          3. Morton212 says

            Probably, you do. In fact obsolete laws are rarely repealed – and rarely if ever actually used. For example it is still illegal to shoot rabbits from tramcars in NYC, you may urinate by the drivers door of your car if you are the driver and the engine is running – it is a hangover from a horse and carriage when the driver had to hold the leashes so the horse would not bolt. You might still be arrested for lewd behavior but that is still a legitimate defense. And more pertinently – the recent letter signed by several Senators and sent to the Iranian Supreme Leader, was actually sedition – but no one would prosecute under that 200 year-old law.

          4. Paul Smith says

            You totally miss the point but that doesn’t surprise me.

          5. Morton212 says

            What IS your point – do you really have one ?

    2. headonstraight says

      Now you’ve done it. That little-known information will rattle and energize both the gun nuts and the
      pseudo-historians who revel in the glories of the Old South.

    3. Paul Smith says

      Are you suggesting that guns are no longer needed because there is no slavery? You can’t be serious.

      1. Morton212 says

        I answered that delusion, below.

        1. Paul Smith says

          I find no other entry from you?

          1. Morton212 says

            No – not to you – to mac12sam12

          2. Paul Smith says

            I looked through the comments and searched for your name. No joy.

  18. Jerry Cox says

    Don’t buy the paper. There are more of us than that believe in constitution and against gay marriage. Being a supporter in polls only do not tell the story. Every state that had the right to have on a ballot initiative voted overwhelmingly that marriage was between a man and a woman. People need to just stop catering any paper, business, or otherwise that says we should not be allowed to honor what we believe. If they are intolerant with me I will repay the favor.

  19. Mark Clemens says

    None of our Amended rights are absolute. Look at PROHIBITION of alcohol. It was repealed. Our Second Amendment Rights follow the same procedural rules, as do our other amended rights.
    This should be a wake up call, on researching candidates. If they are against our gun rights, don’t vote for them. All the gun grabbers need is 3/4 of both houses, to steal our second amendment rights.
    It’s a damn shame politicians don’t have go town to town platforming in front of people anymore. So they could be confronted on the issues in public. These TV debates suck. The moderators ask “soft” questions………
    Candy ass questions, make candy ass leaders.

  20. brabbie2002 says

    Here sits a zealot. The Constitution meant exactly what it states – the right to bear arms. If you read further, you will find it also mentions for protection against an out of control government. Does this sound familiar???

    1. hangem'high says

      Or to defend against a tyrant who is backed by the UN!

  21. Pete says

    Guns on the street Citizens carrying a gun .. Not a problem Criminals on the street ( Paroled ) carrying a gun . ( Illegal) commiting crimes .. I have a problem there .. Solution One it armed victims of crime fighting back …

    1. EMIRCITNA says

      THE BEST deterrent to an armed criminal is an ….ARMED CITIZEN!!!

    2. Robert Young says

      I agree that carrying a gun is not a problem. It is a PERSON who uses a gun illegally that is the problem. We have Criminal Laws to solve this problem. A person illegally using a gun should be arrested, tried in Court and, if found guilty, punished as prescribed by Law/

      1. Paul Smith says

        Minor technicality. . .we have (should have) law abiding citizens carrying weapons to ‘solve this problem’.

  22. Patriot47 says

    Proofread – using liberal speak like “gun violence” gives credence to a line of BS. And the Constitution gives NO rights, it affirms NATURAL RIGHTS. We cannot win by surrendering to crappy ideas.

  23. Mark Clemens says

    Here’s a Tampa tid bit…..
    In 1967 or 69 the local rape rate went up considerably. The following year, the city of Tampa gave women FREE gun training classes. For some strange reason, rape in Tampa dropped by 70% over the next 4 years.
    Times have changed…..

  24. headonstraight says

    Of course gun rights are NOT “absolute.” If they were absolute, then there would be no authority for states or local governments to issue those beloved concealed carry permits that are held in such hallowed esteem by the pro-gun sector. In the Heller case, the Court did not conclude that gun rights were absolute. They left plenty of latitude for REGULATION of gun sales and gun ownership. If gun rights were “absolute,” then it would be unconstitutional to require background checks. If gun rights were “absolute,” it would be unconstitutional to prohibit airplane passengers from taking their Glocks, Sig Sauers, and Smith & Wessons on board. If gun rights were “absolute,” then a citizen could purchase and possess any
    number of any kind of guns (e.g. machine guns) and take them anywhere without breaking the law.

    NO–gun rights are NOT absolute!

    1. lha says

      Do You know how to read? get a copy of the Constitution and READ it. You’ll find that You’ve been lied to. Anyone with an average grasp of the English language can read it! Forget what hypocritical politicians like Barbara Boxer tell You,when they themselves carry a gun. Other liberal politicians argue that Citizens don’t need guns for protection,yet have armed bodyguards 24/7.

      1. headonstraight says

        I have read it. Now you tell me this: Is it unconstitutional to require background checks on firearms purchases and to prohibit airplane passengers from taking their Glocks, Sig Sauers, and Smith & Wessons on board airplanes? And should the laws permit any citizen (including even convicted felons) to purchase and possess any number of any kind of guns whatsoever (e.g. machine guns) and take them anywhere ?

        Or is it your view of the “absoluteness” of the second amendment that the government has no legal right to invoke those measures?

        1. Paul Smith says

          “Is it unconstitutional to require background checks on firearms purchases”. . .yes, absolutely.

          “and to prohibit airplane passengers from taking their Glocks, Sig Sauers, and Smith & Wessons on board airplanes?”. . .yes, absolutely – though there is nothing to prevent the airlines from doing so and the public should demand that they do.

          “And should the laws permit any citizen (including even convicted felons) to purchase and possess any number of any kind of guns whatsoever (e.g. machine guns) and take them anywhere?. . .Before the Constitutional authors met to amend the Articles of Confederation, people carried the top of the line weapons of the day for personal protection and for hunting. Weapons of mass destruction like cannon, grenades, mortars, etc. were kept in armories where they could be quickly put into action by the militia if needed. No person needs a weapon of mass destruction and that would include full-auto weapons. The States and local governments should have full control of these weapons and the laws governing them – not the federal government.

          1. headonstraight says

            So you believe that the government scan not legally prohibit guns on airplanes, but that the airlines can legally prohibit them? Does that not mean that you believe that the airlines can deny a citizen his/her Second Amendment right to carry a firearm onto an airplane? If Second Amendment rights are “absolute,” where then does an airline or other commercial business get off interfering with a citizen’s right to “keep and bear arms?”

            See where this “absolute” asininity takes you!

          2. Paul Smith says

            You clearly do not understand the Constitution. The government may not. People and businesses may. You do not have free speech rights in a business. You do not have carry rights in a person’s home. You do not have the right to practice your religion in either.

          3. headonstraight says

            People and businesses can indeed infringe on constitutional rights; for example, places of public accommodation can not legally discriminate against a person on account of his/her race, or national origin. Cracker Barrel learned that when they discriminated against blacks seeking service at one of their establishments.
            Much of the civil rights struggle and successful outcome was forged from such things as protests by blacks against being denied service at public, commercially operated businesses, namely lunch counters.

            A home is not a place of public accommodation, so your example there is a dud.

            Next time you go a-flying, carry your firearm with you and advise the TSA folks that they are not a private business, but merely agents of a government constitutionally prohibited from interfering with your Second Amendment rights. Then stride right past them to board your flight and see how far you get.

          4. OldPatriot32 says

            No; there are situations where Public Safety trumps taking firearms, explosives, knives, etc. on planes, or into courthouses and/or other public facilities. Common sense dictates these public areas should be safe and weapon-free.

    2. kenndeb says

      Actually, they are absolute. Unfortunately, Americans have been conned into thinking that they need permission from the government to exercise their rights.

      1. headonstraight says

        So then, in your opinion, is it unconstitutional to require background checks and to prohibit airplane passengers from taking their Glocks, Sig Sauers, and Smith & Wessons on board airplanes? And should the laws permit any citizen. to purchase and possess any number of any kind of guns whatsoever (e.g. machine guns) and take them anywhere ?

        1. kenndeb says

          YES

    3. Keith Allison says

      Hey headonstraight: Unfortunately, you cannot rely on things that go on within government, including our judicial system. Many years ago, I worked as a denturist, I made, fitted, altered and/or repaired full and/or partial dentures to the public; I even held a Registration from the Washington State Department of Licensing that allowed me to perform those tasks. But then, the dental community became a bit hysterical and contacted state authorities to put me out of business. The first time I went to court over my occupation, Judge F. James Gavin found me not guilty and I went back to work. Dentistry did not take this kindly, so they again approached Judge Gavin and informed him that if he would just put me out of business, they would guarantee him that his name would be put in nomination for a position on a higher court. He agreed to dentistry’s commands, allowed them to haul me back into court, but this time he found me guilty as charged and destroyed my business. I turned the business over to my wife, and she performed all of the tasks of dealing with the public as a denturist. However, early one evening, a Deputy Sheriff from Yakima County knocked on my door with an arrest warrant and hauled me off to the court in the basement of the jail where I was sentenced to 10 days in jail for working as a denturist. By the way, all empirical reports show that denturists nor denturitry have never been shown to represent any potential for harm to anyone. Due to the lack of potential for harm, the Registration I had was more than sufficient to allow me to labor at my chosen occupation. However, as admitted to me by Judge F. James Gavin several years later, he stated: “Everything you have ever written about me allowing myself to be approached off the bench, is one hundred percent true. I apologize to you for what I did. Is there anything else I can say or do?” I responded by telling him he could put his confession in writing, but he stated, “No, I Can’t Do That.” Any respect I ever had for the judicial system went out the door after that.

      1. headonstraight says

        Giving you the benefit of the doubt, i.e. assuming you have given a true account of the abuse you suffered at the hands of unprincipled persons and agencies, it is evident that you have encountered inexcusable resistance–not to mention hostility and even extortion–in your attempt to obtain licensure for your business. One question, though: Did you ever obtain legal counsel to assist you in this protracted conflict?

        That said, I do not find any parallel between your trials and what I am saying about the legitimacy of legal, constitutionally valid government regulation of firearms.

        1. Keith Allison says

          Oh yes headson…, I did have legal counsel. Also, I did hold a license in the form of a registration from the Department of Licensing. That is all that is required in the state of Washington where there is little, if any, potential for harm to the public. However, it mattered not that I was legally practicing my occupation as a “Registered Denturists.” All it takes is a little bribe where a corrupt judge is concerned, and you are then down the tubes. Oh yes, both of the attorney’s I had on that case resigned just prior to my so-called hearing.

        2. Keith Allison says

          Headson—–: If you take some time to review the legality of any government law, rule, order, etc., you will find that under the Fourteenth Amendment , “Liberty means more than freedom from bodily restraint. State regulation of liberty must be related to a proper state objective. And, the only objective the state has
          whenever they introduce a law, rule, order, etc., is the protection of the public’s healthls, welfare, morals, or safety.

          1. headonstraight says

            You say THIS:

            “And, the only objective the state has
            whenever they introduce a law, rule, order, etc., is the protection of the public’s healthls [sic], welfare, morals, or safety.”

            And that is why, Keith, it IS constitutional to require background checks and to prohibit airplane passengers from taking their Glocks, Sig Sauers, and Smith & Wessons on board and why it is not permissible for a citizen. to purchase and possess any number of any kind of guns whatsoever (e.g. machine guns) and take them anywhere without breaking the law.

            NO–gun rights are NOT absolute!

          2. Paul Smith says

            I disagree with you both. The Federal government has no such rights (or objectives). They cannot fix such problems, they can only compound them.

        3. Keith Allison says

          You might take into consideration that constitutionally protected right of American citizens to “Keep and bear arms.”

          1. headonstraight says

            I have fully taken that into consideration and I have also taken into consideration that it is not an “absolute” right of the sort claimed by the gun nuts on this forum.

        4. Keith Allison says

          Headson….. I am not asking or expecting anyone to”give me the benefit of the doubt.” It is all a matter of court records which I hold copies to. Also, if it weren’t true< why would Judge Gavin admit to it in front of his bailiff? He probably had his baililiff there because he thought I might take him apart at the seams which is something some men would have done.

        5. Keith Allison says

          The parallel obviously missing, is the fact that government entities are only happy when they convince the public that we need to ask them for permission to do whatever we want to do before we do it. From the public employees I know, many of them have forgotten that they are employed by the government in order to serve the needs of the public, not themselves.

        6. Keith Allison says

          Drat, I must have missed that part of the Constitution that clearly gives government the Constitutional Right to regulate firearms.

          1. headonstraight says

            You might have missed it, but the courts of this land did not.

    4. OldPatriot32 says

      I guess the words “shall not be infringed” (re the right to bear arms) doesn’t ring with you, then.

      1. headonstraight says

        Not in the perverse way it rings with you!

  25. yshaw1 says

    First of all the Tampa times is a left wing paper. That is why their distribution is so low.
    Second I would rather see a good guy with a gun any day. The criminal will always be able to locate a gun no matter what. The people who follow the law will be the ones who are hurt by unfair gun laws.

  26. James Maxwell says

    I have always tried to be a law abiding citizen, but I will say that if they ban guns then I will be an
    outlaw. I refuse to give up my ability to protect and defend my family or provide food for them by
    hunting and fishing. I also have a garden where I grow food stuff that we enjoy along with venison,
    rabbit and squirrel and other edible food stuff. I have enjoyed using firearms, Bow & Arrow, even
    a spear when fishing at times. Fortunately I have only had to pull a weapon three times during
    my life span to protect my family or property and did not have to fire my weapon. But one thing
    that you must always remember is that if you pull the weapon you must have already made the
    decision that you will use it if the threat does not go away. Sadly in our society today we have
    parents who have never taught their children how, when or where to use a weapon and the
    proper usage of it either for hunting or self defense. All of my children, grand children and great
    grand children have been taught the basic safety rules of firearms and I have taught them how
    to shoot and always be sure of what they are shooting at and what is behind the target also.

  27. papa doug says

    The Tampa Bay Times is yet another socialist mouthpiece for Obama and his socialist agenda. It isn’t about public safety or a lower crime rate. They know better to say that it is because when ever they have the facts blow them off the wall. No, it’s about socialist domination of America plain and simple, it’s about the death of our Constitution and democracy and they can only accomplish that by getting rid of the guns.

    We already have more gun laws than most countries and see how well the criminals obey them? Of course you don’t because they are criminals, hello! They ignore gun laws!
    And don’t expect help from law makers or the military because they will be the ones who come to take your guns away!

    They’re coming to take them away HA, HA they’re coming to take them away HO, HO, HE, HE, HA, HA because you did nothing to stop them but sit and smile and write and curse and twiddle your thumbs so they’re coming to take them away Ha, HA to the melting pot as they laugh and cheer and drink their beer and leave you at the mercy of muslims and sharia law and thugs and drugs. Happy now?

  28. MichaelZZ says

    THE BILL OF RIGHTS

    Second Amendment

    Right to Keep and Bear Arms

    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.

    DEFINITIONS:

    (1) “Well-regulated militia”:

    Broadly defined: any military force

    Narrowly defined: any military force, composed of CITIZENS (who are called out in the time of emergency) rather than professional soldiers, which is regulated by the State or an agency thereof. I.e., the UNIFORMED military is the ORGANIZED militia, while all others constitute the potential UNORGANIZED militia (which can become the “well-regulated militia”).

    (2) “Security of a free State”:

    Implies an independent government within a territory having definitive boundaries protecting itself from forces within and without, further assuming that a “free State” is a comprehensive collective unit rather than

    FACTIONAL GROUPS or INDIVIDUALS.

    DISCUSSION:

    It appears that there is no “well-regulated militia” (un-uniformed) in the United States of America. Further, it appears that the INTENT of the framers of this article felt that the ORGANIZED militia needed the potential of augmentation to its forces if and when required. It is, further, probable that the State National Guard system is the metamorphosis of the “well-regulated militia”.

    It, further, appears that no intent of this article was to imply any right of the individual to keep and bear arms for any purpose other than to be able to participate in a “well-regulated militia”.

    CONCLUSION:

    It appears that, under ARTICLE II of the United States Constitution, no INHERENT right to keep and bear arms has been recognized or granted to the individual by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Furthermore, since the “well-regulated militia” has been subrogated by the ORGANIZED militia, this ARTICLE is without significance, i.e., has no meaning or consequence.

    And, finally, the various militaristic groups throughout the country are not valid militia, but are illegal, dangerous and abominable cancers to a civilized society and as with any cancer, if not eliminated, can
    spread and destroy that environment (society).

    These rogue militaristic groups can and will get out of hand.
    Do we, as a civilized society wait until disaster strikes or do we pre-empt by applying and establishing law to truncate this societal cancer?

    mikiesmoky@aol.com

    1. OldPatriot32 says

      If I were you, I’d worry more about the Islamic armed training camps scattered around the nation, then some private, proAmerican militias also scattered around the nation. The latter may one day save the US from the barbarism and tyranny of the former. WAKE UP!

  29. Keith says

    The Constitution makes it very clear. Every Citizen is allowed to protect themselves and their families and finally their Country with firearms. This right Cannot be Infringed! ALL GUN LAWS are ILLEGAL! By this I mean EVERY person from the homeless guy living under a bridge and the guy living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Everyone!

    1. Keith Allison says

      No doubt about it, you’re absolutely right. Read my second posting if you want to see just how corrupt our judiciary can be.

  30. CrustyOldGeezer says

    From “The Second Amendment” (David Barton, wallbuilders.com )

    “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property – together with the Right to support and Defend them in the best manner they can.”

    Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, “Father of the American Revolution”
    The next quote, same author.

    “The said Constitution should never be construed…. to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable Citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

    “The Right… of bearing arms is declared to be inherent in the People”
    Fisher Ames, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress.

    ANY book from Wallbuilders.com is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED READING.

  31. Dan says

    I reserve my unalienable right to bear arms. Thank you.

  32. jim marcum says

    they just keep trying to strip the American people down to a more defenseless state.

  33. fred says

    If you’re currently subscribing to the Tampa Paper, stop your subscription immediately, you don’t have to listen to their anti-American BS any longer! I stopped my subscription to my local communist rag many years ago and haven’t missed it one bit! The ONLY thing these criminals respect is the almight dollar! Vote with your wallet when you see something you don’t agree with, and they WILL go away!

  34. Follow Me Boys says

    come and get it

  35. ESQ says

    The 2nd Amendment is Absolute !

    1. MichaelZZ says

      You mean the 2nd Amendment is obsolete?

      mz

  36. don76550 says

    If that is the case then 1st amendment rights are not absolute either. Newspapers habitually lie on issue after issue, print slanted and inaccurate news stories only on issues they agree with, and indeed have even committed treason by publishing military information. Everyone is well aware of news stores edited to portray the opposite of what actually happened. Maybe it is time to consider licensing and registration of main stream journalists. After all, if it would stop just one lie, stop one act of treason wouldn’t it be worth it? It is also time to repeal the libel protection newspapers have, nothing like losing a few lawsuits for lying to improve their accuracy.

  37. rchguns says

    How can they say this with a straight face. Dade County at one of the highest murder rates in crime rates in the nation. This is when they had strict gun control. When right to carry came into being the crime rate went down exponentially. There is no way around it if you look at facts that were guns are legal crime is down.

    1. OldPatriot32 says

      Chitown’s strict gun laws haven’t done much to stem the carnage, either. Ditto NYC, LA, etc. Every night I watch the LA news; every night multiple shootings. LA’s strict gun laws are working quite well-for the gangsters, gangbangers, and felons!

  38. Combatvet52 says

    The Constitution means precisely what it says……..what part don’t you anti gunner’s understand,
    Iv’e been carrying for some 54 years and never had any issues…….regulation nation how about regulating this present administration who are out of control.

  39. George Cahonna says

    One phrase comes to mind..As Thomas Jefferson once said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” And what we have in the Media today is pure manure, & we will keep them in mind.

  40. Michael says

    It’s amazing to me that these liberal idiots don’t understand that without the second amendment, you lose the rest including the right to free speech. Liberals only want things controlled by them. As far ads I’m concerned, there isn’t a real investigative reporter on the big 3 networks. I don’t know what these professors

  41. Alleged Comment says

    Hmm, they are saying the EXACT opposite of what the Constitution says. In another words lieberals are incapable of understanding good and evil.

    Many are saying they have mental illness, and why I have been calling lieberals to be licensed and monitored and forbid civil or government authority.

  42. MAHB001 says

    It is about time a law comes out to outlaw liberalism.

  43. Ray Looker says

    It is true. The federal government can take away your right to own a gun anytime they want to and the federal courts will uphold the ban. Background checks have never kept ‘real’ criminals from getting guns, even fully automatic weapons of war. Not everyone the federal government puts in prison is a ‘criminal’. Many are there to uphold political imprisonment to meet Presidential goals, one of which is to ensure that more and more people will be denied the ‘Right’ to own a gun or to provide for self-defense and protection of their property, and their families. God forbid that anyone, who was imprisoned, would be allowed to use any kind of weapon to protect their family in time of dire need. The media is correct, because the media and the federal courts do not support the Constitution of the United States as being valid in this modern era. raylooker.com

  44. Wolf says

    How come there’s no link to the editorial? I’m on their website right now and I’m not seeing it.

  45. Mel Cardonell says

    why is the 2nd amendment the only one we as law abiding citizens must continually defend? I don’t believe that to be true of the other ammendmants ,or at least not on that scale. what part of the word right don’t these people grasp? when it is and has clearly been shown to be a myth that law abiding citizens are not the cause of gun deaths. it is criminals who break the laws to begin with,strret gangs ,drug dealers etc. screwing law abiding citizens only puts more citizens at risk! enforce the laws on the books..mandatory sentences for using fire arms to commit crimes, non negotiable..no plea bargain, full sentence must be served in addition to crimes that were committed using guns..thats how you slow down and reduce gun violence..period!

    1. Bruce O'ryan says

      In Ohio it’s I believe three years just for using a gun in a crime in addition to the crime itself and its automatic. As it should be. Even IMPLYING that you have a gun is automatic time.

  46. jngtelco says

    What happened to these rights shall not be infringed. The closer we follow the Constitution the more freedom we all have.

  47. OldPatriot32 says

    This is a notice to all gun-grabbers: ZEALOT THIS!

  48. Chris Robinette says

    I’m sorry but the constitution of the US is absolute. Get over it. If the none of the constitution is absolute then the tampa bay editors had best shut up as they no longer have any freedom of speech.

  49. Pam Dunn says

    The Tampa Bay Times is a low life left winger propaganda machine that spews this type of idiocy every day. They have no brains and lack any intelligence.

  50. The American says

    I just love hearing the words “common sense” from people that do not have any common sense. We already have laws for murder, robbery, Etc. No law or infringement has ever stopped a crime and can only be used after a crime is committed. Infringements only deny good people their rights, and there for can not be considered LAW and are illegal to enforce. That IS common sense!

  51. Ron Bartels says

    The constitution would have said that the states or the federal government could put limits on the second amendment right, but they choose not to do so.

    The main purpose was to deter government from sending soldiers (or cops) to harass or kill innocent people; in short to keep the people liberated from the tyrants who always try to make rules, regulations, laws and statutes to enslave the people. It is also to protect people from criminals.

    If government has tanks and armored personnel carriers, the people should have at least the same ability to defend liberty and the tyrants who run government do to take it away.

    Liberals always think they know better than the founding fathers.

  52. davidfromfairviewpa says

    The Second Amendment is the ONLY one that is absolute and all inclusive. It simply states “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say Congress shall make no law like some other rights. It doesn’t grant the rights of regulation to the states. What could be more clear than that. Almost all reasonable citizens believe that convicted criminals have lost many of their civil rights and that it is wise and prudent to deny guns to people diagnosed as insane as well as anyone who has threatened an innocent person with a gun. Naturally children are recognized as too immature to possess guns just as they are too immature to drive or serve in the military. Other than that, it is clear that states and cities have absolutely no right to interfere with the keeping and bearing of arms unless the Second Amendment is properly revoked or revised by constitutional process. With that said, all gun banners are unconstitutionally interfering with the constitutional rights of others. Gun banners just need to live with that.

  53. adrianvance says

    The idiots of America have already cost us our economy, and me at least $1 million.
    Now they are going for the whole enchilada!

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

  54. MIKE6080 says

    then can we choose what amendments we wish to obey? dont like paying taxes , maybe women shouldnt vote , maybe presidents should rule for life .

  55. sonnybono says

    I lived in Tampa for many many years and for a long time The Tampa Bay Times was a classy newspaper which I enjoyed very much.Evidently since I moved away 9 years ago they have become a leftist leaning publication.The attacks on our 2nd amendment rights just keep coming,but have you noticed they just get weaker and weaker.Only the law abiding citizens have the right to carry arms for self protection.They certainly do not break the laws.For sure the thugs which carry arms in most cases illegal or stolen will never give them up.God bless our forefathers who formed our constitution to protect us.Obama dearly hates it. God Bless America!!!!!

  56. Mark Forrer says

    Says you you whinny added liberal rag….

  57. Hudmar says

    Amazing how a newspaper writer, imagine that a writer, doesn’t even understand what he reads on the Constitution.

  58. Terry Rushing says

    According to this “Jewel of Journalism”, I wonder which other rights are not absolute and what limitations would this bastion of constitutional government place on those “limited” rights?

  59. JJ says

    Our courts are corrupt, our politicians are all LIARS, no wonder they don’t want us to have guns. Look at Harry Rieds latest stunt, a perfect case for euthanisum if ever existed. We need to start exercising our right to cleanse the gene pool starting at the top of the political ladder and working down.

  60. Charlie says

    The socialist want the ignorant citizens to believe that the second amendment is vague and can be interpreted to mean what the socialist describe . Problem is the second amendment is not a multiple thousand page bill / law like the PPACA aka Obama Care aka ACA . No the second amendment is twenty-six words backed by Federalist writings . Both the second and the Federalist writings are concise to the point written in a manner that no confusion is possible. The second amendment is in place to keep our public political servants from committing the act of tyranny . Tyranny is the absolute abuse of absolute governmental powers . Yes we are seeing the abuse of granted powers , hopefully the checks and balances in place via our constitution will kick in and squelch the abuse of granted power given to our political servants.

  61. Michael Mooney says

    I used to be in favor of denying gun rights to “criminals” but then I realized all the government would have to do to take our right is call us criminals.

  62. Ronald Gunn says

    Add the Tampa paper to the list of idiots that belong to the saying, YOU CAN”T FIX STUPID. Put their name right under Obama’s name because as hard as they try they can never be as STUPID as Obama but they are trying.

  63. Gray_Doug says

    Rights given by God ARE absolute, Mr. Wizard. They are not yours to give or take. And I shall never surrender my liberty to ignorance or hatred. Never pretend that man is greater than his Creator. Never pretend that God will be driven out of the nation as long as one Christian heart lives.

  64. tinkerunique says

    I suggest that EVERYBODY look up the “Efficiency of Militia Bill” (1902) and the “Dick Act” (1909) t find out the TRUE meaning of the word “militia” and the amount of guns “the people” CAN have. VERY SPECIFIC wording supports the 2d Amendment. DO NOT ASSUME you know = find out the facts .

  65. BS1986 says

    I grow tired of these libtards……..

  66. CrustyOldGeezer says

    Alexander Hamilton:

    “{The Supreme Being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He invested in him {man} an invioable right to personal Liberty and personal Safety.”

    Even Blackstone had an opinion on the subject.

    “The Right of the Citizens that I shall at present, is that of having arms for their defense… [this is] the natural right of resistence and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insuffecient to restrain the violence of oppression…[T]o vindicate these right when actually violated or attacked, the [citizens] are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, the right of petitioning the [government] for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defense.

    George Rawle, US Attorney under President George Washington:

    “In the Second [Amendment], it is declared.. that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could, by any rul of construction, be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the People, A flagitious [flagrantly wicked] attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a State legislature. But if, in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either [the State or federal government] should attempt it, this Amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

    {The Second Amendment wallbuilders.com $5.95 plus shipping}

    The book, though small, is full of quotes from the Founding Fathers that ARE NOT taken out of context.

    NONE of the Founding fathers denied the RIGHT to keep and bear arms as anything but a ‘natural right to self preservation and protection from tyranny.

    Including the defense against moronic editors of useless newspaper rags not fit for the bottom of bird cages.

  67. moe says

    Not surprising,the Tampa Bay Times is off the chart Liberal. Their readership has so declined they’re forced to sell their propaganda on street corners.It is a St. Petersburg paper,not Tampa. Tampa’s paper is the Tribune

  68. Ed says

    Time has come for liberal newspapers to find out that “Freedom of the Press” isn’t absolute. If no one bought these newspapers they would go the way of the dinosaurs. They are infected with God deniers, gay lovers and USA haters. It’s time to fight back folks, hit it where it hurts……..don’t buy their rags!

  69. Marco Beeman says

    What difference does it make? Hell, I think Hillary was right, with this regime usurping power and rendering the NUTLESS Congress POWERLESS to stop obama’s willful ignorance of the CONSTITUTION, a document he SWORE on a KORAN to uphold, and the unending stream of Executive Orders that go against the population at every turn, and a DOJ that is just as corrupt, if not much more so, than the executive “branch”, we do not stand much of a chance of remaining the “land of the free and the home of the brave much longer. Welcome to the USSA, United SOCIALIST States of America!!! Until we seat a Congress with the balls to stand up to obama, we are living in a DICTATORSHIP, no IF’S, AND’S or BUT’S!!!

    1. headonstraight says

      Your bias and ignorance are confirmed by your false assertion that Obama swore his oath of office on a Koran. Like so many brazen lies perpetrated by Obamaphobes like you, that is patently FALSE.

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/dec/20/chain-email-gets-obama-religion-wrong/

  70. Taking care of business! says

    The Constitution was printed on paper. The Tampa Bay Times is printed on paper. That’s where the similarity ends.

  71. ricarrdo estavans says

    A right to self defense and the defense of loved ones IS ABSOLUTE. Another fascist socialist submissive foolish rag of a paper. Never give in and keep your powder dry. Lock and load.

  72. setemfree says

    Guess I also am a zealot.

  73. Ray Looker says

    It is true, the federal government can take your gun rights (2nd Amendment) any time they want to. Get arrested, go to a psychologist for some prozac and the federal courts will uphold the violation of your ‘gun’ rights. Liberals do not consider them ‘Rights’ granted by God, but privileges extended by the government, to be taken away whenever they see fit. Someone tell me how anyone who has had their ‘rights’ taken away by the federal government can get their gun rights back. The federal courts will uphold the ban and the violation of the U.S. Constitution. There are no absolutes in government except the rights they seized from us by force, and liberal judges. Background checks do not keep hardened criminals from getting fully automatic assault rifles, and machine guns, and grenades whenever they want them. Background checks only served to incarcerate those who have had their ‘rights’ taken from them by federal police forces.

  74. Sgt. York says

    A Zealot then I am. Florida a illegal crossers haven will spout anything to appease ovomit. They are the most Southern group of. Fools

  75. puggolf says

    The 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states We The People are allowed to “keep and bear arms” up to and including any weapon the government has access to; which means we are ALL authorized to keep an “inter-neighborhood-ballistic missile with an atomic warhead! That is my opinion, and the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to know my opinion!

  76. David says

    The 2nd is here to stay…Get over it….Got Gun? Get One… Don’t leave home without it…..

  77. Dave S. says

    Time to Boycott the “Tampa Bay Times” !!!

  78. bill says

    since gun rights are not absolute then by that reasoning neither is free speech or free press. and please don’t say falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater I know that.

  79. ramrodd says

    Common sense, responsible, reasonable are all gun grabber code words………

  80. Timothy Bunn says

    Why now after over 250 years of this liberty is it now wrong? Because lying is easier than telling truth and we are in the last days where evil is ruling. President lying is whole sale, and billionaires easy money too do evil, and won’t help the sick and hungry. This is prioritizing lying.

  81. james says

    james

  82. james says

    How low can these Idiots go

  83. Fred762 says

    Taxpayers: Tampa paper’s right to print communist propaganda not absolute.we will vote w our wallets.

  84. Robert Young says

    What is not absolute it the Tampa Bay Times. They depend on their advertisers and people buying this paper. Boycott the advertisers and tell them why,and boycott buying this paper.That will lead to policy changes by the paper or bankruptcy.

  85. cordwinder says

    Tampa Bay Times is going broke, its political views has been less then bias.

  86. PayTheMan says

    i would think that if we are to have a litmus test at all, it would be the our representatives have a modicum of intellect. given that we squander that opportunity for that litmus test, i don’t see how we would hope/assume there would be another for adherence to the constitution.

  87. PayTheMan says

    the constitution was crafted by the founding fathers with the explicit intent that it would be a living document to be REinterpreted regularly (they felt, every 20 years). so, i follow in the footsteps of the original wisdom of the founding fathers… and am not afraid of discussing possible reinterpretations as circumstances evolve.

    the constitution is one of interpretation… we do not take a literalist (biblical style) interpretation of it as revealed through how we pick and choose our adherence to the anti-discrimination elements in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. So, that alone, demonstrates that the constitution is an interactive document that is not held in high esteem in that it is unbreachable… closed to cultural interpretations… infallible. Thus, the questioning of the second amendment’s protections of gun ownership have great, long-term and culturally pervasive precedent with the infringements on the fifth and fourteenth. i do not support these infringements but do feel that in a democracy, the discussion should remain open about that which was written so long ago.

    1. Paul Smith says

      They also left two specific methods for making necessary changes called Amendments. They are the ONLY ways the Constitution should be changed. . .PERIOD!

      1. PayTheMan says

        Amen brother. But that still leaves open the interpretations… But that is presumably why we have a supreme court.

        1. Paul Smith says

          Another excellent reason for a CoS – to close up some of the more obvious loopholes like the Commerce clause, the General Welfare clause and the Natural Born Citizen clause.

          1. PayTheMan says

            What is a CoS?

          2. Paul Smith says

            Convention of States

  88. Ray Williams says

    WMD can be classified as arms? OK, I’ll buy that. Now, how many Americans can afford their own weapons grade plutonium, or the ICBM;s needed to deliver them? I don’t think we would have a huge problem with WMD’s.The true zealots live on the Communist, MSM side of the street.

  89. Michael Dennewitz says

    I have always said, WALL STREET IN POLITICS AND THAT BASTARD WORD “MEDIA” has caused 99% of this country’s problems!!!

  90. joe says

    The constitution means nothing to the left wing dim wits UNTIL they can use it for something they want, other than that it is an outdated document written by out of touch people and it should evolve with the times . Yea the times of the dumbocrats and the dumbocrats alone

  91. Laurence Almand says

    This paper is probably owned by a Leftist/Socialist conglomerate. The anti-gun campaigns in the USA are actually part of a long-range plan to destroy our democracy and make us part of the “one world” Socialist dictatorship. There are several good books available about United Nations corruption, so check them out and study them. You will realize what is happening. Also read the good book GLOBAL WAR ON YOUR GUNS by LaPierre.

  92. Ronald Hagler says

    I know not where such liberal thinking originates, but I do know that to believe the 2nd Amendment does not hold that every citizen in the United States Of America has the right to own any firearm of their choosing is admitting that you do not believe the 1st Amendment allows anyone a true freedom of speech or religious preference.

    Since the 1st Amendment uses the phrase “the right of the people” , in describing the freedoms of assembly, speech and religion, and the 2nd Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed“, it is ignorant to state that which this editorial claims.

  93. disqus_MZe2ymfHQj says

    In the times that we live in, all lives are in clear and imminent danger. Even from our government.

  94. Tom Wiegand says

    Sorry a don’t agree with the statement that we agree that common sense sense should be applied to gun law. I strongly disagree we any law other then the second amendment. And that means no law is allowed to arms!
    The root cause for opposition with regards to guns is somehow the fatalistic have breathed life into a gun. A gun is a intimate object a tool nothing more.
    What we need is to apply common sense to people who are the users of these tools. And to the people that want not to use these tools.
    There is no need for laws against guns or weapons. These are just of shoots of a nanny society making money and deriving power structure through the management of people and their lives. These are the life sacking people who find it much least exhausting bossing then producing. These people are dome that that common sense needs to be applied.
    Like if you don’t like something like guns don’t have one. But don’t try to make a business out of that personal belief.
    That philosophy of survival has leaked into every fiber of our being because we have not been allowed the freedom to apply common sense to our choices by those that find exceptional satisfaction bullying those that think differently then themselves and see themselves as the social barometers for society. These are the freedom suppers much to lazy to productive in their own lives that they feel they could much easily control and sap another’s freedom. These are the same people that create gun free zones and allow for public trespass on private and personal property.
    This is where the common sense needs to applied to the reason for why we have such people and even more so why do we pay attention to their lunacy.
    We the freedom loving productive members don’t need them. I fit they need and use us! All because we have believed their great lies on subjects like common sense and sustaining our existence. They have conned us into believing they hold the keys and without their conflicting fear mongering do as I say not as I do ways we would not survive.
    Makes no sense let alone common sense but we listen and follow.

  95. adrianvance says

    Read Dr. John R. Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” based on ten years of FBI crime stats. The truth will keep us free.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.