Recent Comments

1. almost 8 years ago on [Deleted]

   Mr. Shakeswilly, such regulation is an infringement prohibited by the Constitution. It will do NOTHING to ensure training, it will ONLY prevent people from exercising their rights.

   It will do NOTHING to help track illegal or unregistered firearms. There are currently over 250 million unregistered firearms in this country with more moving into private hands every day. Only six states require some form of registration, the other 51 ummm….err… 44 have no registration. No new law will do anything abut the millions already out there.

   Laws NEVER prevent crime, they can ONLY punish criminals after the fact. Murder is ALREADY a crime, prosecute that crime and leave law abiding citizens alone.

2. almost 8 years ago on Lisa Benson

   Mr. NebulousRikulau, not sure who gave you those quotes, but they are liars. No one has ever said the quote about toddlers. Twice as many children are killed in cars every year than by guns, nearly 12 times as many children are injured by alcohol abuse than by firearms. We’ll believe you are really serious about protecting children when you outlaw cars and alcohol, until then your hysteria in=s misplaced.

   As for taking away guns, that is EXACTLY what Ms. Clinton has and continues to support, She has on several occasions promoted a policy like that of Australia, which was EXACTLY a gun confiscation program. If you want us to stop saying they are coming for our guns, you need to tell your politicians to stop saying they want to come after our guns.

3. almost 8 years ago on [Deleted]

   Mr kurtzwicky, True, the Constitution was written long before cell phones and email and many bits of technology in use today, does that mean the government has the right and authority to tap that technology without a warrant as required by that same Constitution, after all cell phones aren’t mentioned anywhere in the document, right????

   But you are quite free to join the movement to repeal the second amendment, which is the proper way to alter the document. Just be aware that such will require a super-majority in congress to pass and then must be ratified by two-thirds of all the states. Good luck with that.

4. almost 8 years ago on Lisa Benson

   Mr. Dypac, the state of Kentucky is prohibited such regulation by the Second Amendment. ANY infringement on the right to keep and BEAR is a violation of that amendment, that would include the manner in which the arms is carried.

   The authors of the Constitution intended EVERY citizen to be armed and to carry those arms unless the right to do so was denied AFTER due process, see Amendment 5.

5. almost 8 years ago on Lisa Benson

   Mr. Braindead, arms is a specific class of weapon that does not include bombs or gas. It does however include automatic firearms. The US citizen has the right, as protected by the Second Amendment, to carry ANY arms currently carried by the US military, and that would include automatic firearms.

6. almost 8 years ago on Lisa Benson

   Mr. Ahab, hysteria aside, more children are killed by automobiles in six months than are killed by firearms in a year. More children are injured every month by alcohol abuse than by firearms in a year. If you were REALLY so all fired concerned over children, when are you going to ban alcohol and cars, BOTH being more dangerous to children than firearms?

   But I’m guessing you aren’t really concerned about death and injury to children at all, you’re just looking for an excuse to support your hoplophobia.

7. almost 8 years ago on Lisa Benson

   Mr Pookid, the court has NO authority to INFRINGE on the right to bear in ANY way, including the display of the firearm.

   Laws have never prevented crime, they can ONLY punish crime after its been committed. Leave law abiding citizens alone and punish criminals.

8. almost 8 years ago on Lisa Benson

   Mr. Guitarsaur, The court has no constitutional authority to regulate how a citizen carries a firearm. See Second Amendment.

   George Mason, the author of the Second Amendment already defined a well regulated militia, it is the whole of the people. It does not exist until called up by congress (Article I, Section 8, US Constitution). The second clause of the Second Amendment states very clearly that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the PEOPLE, all of the PEOPLE. Only AFTER congress calls them up as militia can the government regulate their arms.

9. almost 8 years ago on Lisa Benson

   Mr Alberta Oil, there are two definitions of the phrase “well regulated” that were in effect at the time the clause was written. George Mason, the author of the amendment, used both in explaining the phrase during debates. One, is well appointed or properly equipped, the other is well ordered. It is of note that the militia does not exist until called up by Congress, see Article I, Section 8, US Constitution. Prior to being called up, they are the people, the whole of the people according to Mr. Mason. Congress has the power to regulate the militia AFTER it is called up, but not before (again Article I, Section 8).

10. almost 8 years ago on [Deleted]

    Any regulation is a violation of the Second Amendment, but that is a different issue. The NRA has always supported background checks, they don;t work, but the NRA supports them anyway.