Huey Driver Loc: Texas

Army Vet

Here this guy out. Powerful.

It Only Took This Army Vet 3 Minutes To Destroy Obama's Gun Control Ban

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imw8YGyPgk4

Skellum0

I am also an army vet. I used to think much the same way, but, having now had the benefit of travelling and living in several countries over the past 15 years I have seen gun control work and save literally tens of thousands of lives, so, over that period my mind has completely changed.

However, to work properly it needs to be done properly. Obama's plan is a weak fudge.

sye Loc: The Old Dominion Near DC

OUTSTANDING !! Good for him !! I just hope that he wasn't reprimanded at work for his speech. His sense of purpose and emotion spoke more to me than his words.

Yellow tavern Loc: Liverpool

As a British person may I congratulate this gentleman for his forthright speech. He should be in politics but then I suppose that his voice would be squashed as it it in this country when anybody stands up for common sense

BW326 Loc: Boynton Beach, Florida

Why does every attempt at some semblance of responsible gun control get turned into "Obama is trying to take away our guns?"

Never mind, I was being rhetorical.


"The SAFE Act stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun by requiring universal background checks on gun purchases, increases penalties for people who use illegal guns, mandates life in prison without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and imposes the toughest assault weapons ban in the country. For hunters, sportsmen, and law abiding gun owners, this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns."

- Governor Andrew Cuomo

sye Loc: The Old Dominion Near DC

First of all, Gov Andrew Cuomo is quoted as saying this.

Here are some more questions to ponder:

1. What is the difference between someone who is "dangerously mentally ill" and only "mentally ill"
2. "Life w/o possibility of parole for someone who murders a first responder. This should be the law for anyone who murders someone else. In fact, I would support the execution for anyone who murders another, if not life w/o parole. would guess that many states havbe some permutation of this law on their books someplace. They just need to enforce it better. I can't help remembering that famous quote: "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."
3. "...imposes the toughest assault weapons ban in the country." Anything can be an assault weapon if you assault someone with it. When will cars, baseball bats, hammers, fists and feet be banned? Will those be confiscated from criminals and dangerously mentally ill too ?

Spindrift62 Loc: Dorset, England. U.K.

Enoch Powell immediately springs to mind in respect of British politics.

Ronr2 Loc: Virginia

Would like to know how you could have seen gun control work and save literally tens of thousands of lives?
Is this an opinion or fact?

kemosabe

Name some countries and show some factual information. You are just blowing hot air so far.
What you said is like saying that you saw cigarettes killing 200 million people. I like the way you always blame the instrument rather than the "person" using the implement.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Skellum is thinking of all of the murders prevented each year in North Korea by a total weapons ban, except, of course, the ones used to execute his uncles family including Aunts, 20 years old nephews, underage children who were machine gunned, his uncle and closet aids were executed by "dogs". His ex girlfriend machine gunned, by a government with all the guns, and the people with none.
http://www.businessinsider.com/kim-jong-un-s-uncle-and-hungry-dogs-2014-1
http://rt.com/news/korean-leader-family-slayed-213/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533088/How-Kim-Jong-Un-killed-scum-uncle-Dictator-stripped-naked-thrown-cage-eaten-alive-pack-dogs.html

Can't ever happen here, he will say, except for this…
Watch a homeless man armed with two small knives have a dog set upon him, stun guns, bean bags and finally shot to death… right here in New Mexico. This is all by the same guys "keeping the peace" . Unless of course you are doing ANYTHING they don't want you to. Like camping.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-26725455


But then you don;t need guns for mass murder.

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-china-knifing-attack-leaves-27-dead-state-media-reports-20140301,0,4517308.story#axzz2x86GLSux

http://intellihub.com/gun-control-didnt-save-people-33-killed-chinese-train-station-mass-stabbing/

http://www.cp24.com/world/knife-fight-between-food-peddlers-kills-6-in-china-1.1728773

I could go on and on and all skullum would say is that some survived.. it could have been worse. Not sure if the dead share his point of view or they would have rather had a chance to defend themselves.

pbearperry Loc: Massachusetts

Opinion based on liberal dribble.IMHO

papayanirvana Loc: Kauai

I don't really agree that his right to carry a gun outweighs the rights of the children that died because he fought for our country?!?


If he thought he was fighting for our freedoms in Iraq... he continues to be hoodwinked by the forces that started an unnecessary war. I feel sorry for him and his comrades who had to go through that hell, particularly the ones who did not return. Maybe he is weighing his dead comrades against the dead children...

Anyway, I know I'll get slammed for being an unpatriotic atheist libtard, but before you guys go off on me please explain what you think the 2nd amendment means by "a well-regulated militia"....

What does that have to do with the "stand your ground mentality" I see on this forum?

Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

Well-regulated meant, when it was written, working as designed, functioning properly. Like the brand of clock known as "Regulator." It didn't mean what we think of today when we hear the word. Today we tend to think of the word as meaning "controlled by some authority."
Militia just meant, basically, all the able-bodied men that could be called upon for defensive purposes. Like the Minutemen.
I have no idea what you mean by "stand your ground mentality," but if you mean the principle that I needn't yield my right to be somewhere because of a criminal, then I support it. The alternative is to allow criminals to control where I may and may not go, and as an American, I find that idea somewhat distasteful.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Read "Drums Along the Mohawk"… it will become clear to you. It's a good read, and fairly accurate as it happened in the very area I live, and is more or less based around actual events. They were very brave.

All males able to carry a gun were required by law to have a firearm and report to muster and train for the common defense, or pay a fine. I suppose you could think of a volunteer fire department, if all men in an area were required to report when the siren calls- then practice a bit. It was NOT controlled by any state or federal government, it was a strategy to protect yourself and your fellow neighbors in times of war, skirmish or other emergencies. They realized that in such times, they were one their own if they wished to survive. While the dangers have changed, the spirit remains- you are on your own in the first many minutes or hours before you can expect any help to arrive.

That is precisely what was meant by a well regulated militia.

The liberal mindset is that you sacrifice this first few minutes of time to the criminal, so those NOT involved are somehow protected, while to poor unlucky soul slows up the guy with his and or his families blood. "Heck, he can't kill the whole town, by the time he gets to me and mine, help will arrive". .

Stand your ground protects your right over the criminal. In part- but not exactly , so the guy can't break into your house with a gun, you shoot him, or push him down the stairs, or knock him on the head… or even if he injures himself when no one is home… and he sues you.. don't laugh, it happens. I heard of a guy who broke into a house, locked himself in the garage for three days and sued! Or you don't take every opportunity to run away from the aggressor- "he ONLY shot you because you didn't run fast enough" is a defense taken off the table- you do not have to prove you could have avoided a criminal- that somehow by defending yourself rather then running, puts you in some share of the guilt… how can anybody not think this is how it should be is beyond me.

KotaKrome

OPEN A HISTORY BOOK. At the time of the writing of The Constitution the "militia" was the people.
A draft of The Constitution was sent to Jefferson who was acting as ambassador to France. Jefferson replied that it needed SPECIFIC protections for the citizens from the federal government.
The Constitution was written solely to LIMIT the power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was written to protect the citizens FROM the federal government. (remember WHY we fought for independence and why The Constitution was written)
The government did not need an amendment to maintain a military. If you study the HISTORY of the Continental Congress and READ what the authors SAID and saw what was written in the Constitutions of the individual colonies the INTENT of the authors of the 2nd amendment is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. Patrick Henry said that an unarmed man could never be a free man.
The amendment was written in the vernacular of the time.
If you read: "In order to maintain a well educated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed" would you think the intent was to guarantee the right of the U.S. military to own and carry books????
NOTHING in The Bill of Rights was written to grant power to the federal government. That very idea is bass ackwards.
The founding fathers knew that an armed citizenry would NOT suffer government abuse or coups or ethnic cleansing or DICTATORSHIP, not because their would not be men who would try, but because they could never succeed UNLESS the citizens were unarmed.