[Spencer Daily Reporter nameplate] Light Rain Fog/Mist and Windy ~ 43°F  
High: 47°F ~ Low: 39°F
Saturday, Apr. 30, 2016

Introverted Ramblings

Thursday, January 17, 2013

What was I doing with all these guns? My angst began to fester as the gun control argument raged closer to home. More and more people began telling each other that the gun was the ultimate cure for what ails us, the American Way - Hunter Thompson

With the gun control debate raging throughout the country, I thought I would throw my own hat into the ring.

A particular sect of people is saying that President Barack Obama is trying to go against the Second Amendment, but this couldn't be farther from the truth. All he wants to do is ban military-style weapons from civilians. Why? Because they are military grade weapons. You don't need a semi-automatic assault rifle to take down Bambi or his mother.

Yesterday, President Obama introduced his new proposals for gun control, which resulted in politicians and everyone else speaking out. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassely said, "The Second Amendment is more than just words on paper. It's a fundamental right that ensures citizens the ability to protect themselves against the government." The amendment was written during the American Revolution when we needed state militias. Where does it say in the two-sentence amendment that citizens should rise up against the government when they see fit?

Obama isn't trying to take away all of the guns from people. He wants high-powered, military-grade weapons to stay with, well, the military and law enforcement. The president isn't taking away all guns, which is what some people think he is doing.

This debate isn't just about guns, but everything else that did or did not play a role in the string of shootings at the end of last year. Texas Gov. Rick Perry said, "The vice president's committee was appointed in response to the tragedy at Newtown, but very few of his recommendations have anything to do with what happened there. Guns require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror."

He's right. More money does need to go towards mental health in this country. And maybe that is where President Obama should have focused his proposals today. Then again, he is doing something to get the ball moving on the gun control issue.

Even if more extensive background checks are done or gun bans do pass, a person who wants a gun will find a way to obtain it.

Jon Stewart, host of "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central, said it best: "All of us on any side of the debate are anti-massacre. If some common sense fire arms regulations might cut the number of these killings, why not try?"

Stewart went on to say that nothing is going to be "perfect," but that all we need is a "series of steps...that can improve the situation." Obama started taking those steps yesterday. Will his proposals make it through the House and Senate? Doubtful, seeing as how Republicans are against him on nearly everything he does, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't try. Something is being done, and that is good. Hopefully, something can be done about senseless shootings in the near future.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on spencerdailyreporter.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

In the span of two paragraphs, you both use and mock the same argument. In arguing against Sen. Grassely's position you say "Where does it say in the two-sentence amendment that citizens should rise up against the government when they see fit?"

Yet in the prior paragraph you argue, "All he wants to do is ban military-style weapons from civilians. Why? Because they are military grade weapons. You don't need a semi-automatic assault rifle to take down Bambi or his mother."

Using your own language, where does it say in the two-sentence amendment that citizens should only have firearms needed to take down Bambi or his mother?

-- Posted by Sony on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 10:06 AM

I fully agree that "More money does need to go towards mental health in this country."

Perhaps your next column should follow up with that, because in all honesty, the state of mental health care in this country is appalling (at best). And in my opinion, the issues with it easily trump any argument about gun control.

Now more than ever, we are numb to the devastating effects of a lack of support for those who are mentally ill.

"For too many of us, we hear about gun violence, we talk about it, we mourn it, but to be honest, we've never witnessed it. Our senses have been dulled to the real world carnage. We demand that news organizations not show American troops, or even the enemy, lying dead in war zones...What does that say about America? Oh, let's talk about tragedy, but please, please, please don't show the real results." - Roland Martin, CNN Contributor, "America Should See the Newtown Carnage"

And what about the parents that live in fear daily, because no matter how hard they try, their children's mental health issues aren't being addressed effectively?

"When I asked my son's social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. "If he's back in the system, they'll create a paper trail," he said. "That's the only way you're ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you've got charges." I don't believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael's sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn't deal with the underlying pathology." - Liza Long, The Blue Review, "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother"

Let's stop slinging mud about gun control. As you said, "Even if more extensive background checks are done or gun bans do pass, a person who wants a gun will find a way to obtain it."

My point being, if someone wants to do something badly enough, they will. Whether that includes a gun, knife, hand grenade or arsenic. The method doesn't matter.

We need to do our best to address mental health, so the desire to harm others is lessened. At that time, the issue with weapon access can be addressed.

It's about the individual. Not the make/model/serial number.

-- Posted by kaydoubleyou on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 10:39 AM

massacres that happened used legally purchased guns and every shooting happened in so called "gun free zones".simply another giant gun grab disarming decent americans.why do we responsible citizens who are guaranteed rights to guns have to jump through all kinds of hoops while our socialist liberal leaders send all kinds of weapons to many foreign countries where they end up killing innocent men,women,and kids.anyone see any hypocrisy here?

-- Posted by big12cc on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 11:36 AM

@big - What is your definition of "socialist"?

-- Posted by Sony on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 11:59 AM

I'm gonna like you. Great ramblings.

-- Posted by joev on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 12:36 PM

Interesting post but what exactly is a semi-automatic assault rifle? It is something that does not exist. An assault rifle by definition is an rifle with full automatic capabilities. These types of weapons are already banned. This link which a friend of mine found will help you educate yourself on the subject.


-- Posted by deweyh on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 1:13 PM

That's funny deweyh because an assault rifle can be fully automatic or semi-automatic so I'd say they do exist. Check all your resources before you correct someone.

-- Posted by joev on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 3:07 PM

@deweyh - Fine, but if he calls them "military-style" semi-automatic rifles instead of semi-automatic assault rifles it doesn't change his argument.

-- Posted by Sony on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 3:19 PM

Finally a voice that independent & liberal thinkers can relate to! It's about time!

-- Posted by EmilyB on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 4:22 PM

1. There's no clear definition of an assault weapon, and that definition varies state to state. Semi automatic weapons aren't generally "assault weapons", a semi-automatic means the gun fires a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled. Most guns-such as hunting rifles- belong in this category.

2. The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. It was put in place to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical.

-- Posted by Dagny Taggart on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 6:13 PM

As the 2nd amendment reads:As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

As stated by others, has nothing to do with hunting.

And for those that say it was written in the time of single shot muskets, I wonder, do you look at the freedom of speech the same? It was written before radio, TV and internet.

-- Posted by clayfarmer on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 11:49 AM

I guess that I could have chosen different wording but the premise still stands. It is already illegal to purchase assault rifles. And so called "assault weapons" are a farce. Check out the link for a properly worded explanation.

-- Posted by deweyh on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 12:51 PM

if you think that the weapon you keep in your home will prevent tyrannical government, you may need some of those mental health services we lack. Or maybe some further education.

-- Posted by kmom on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 4:27 PM

deweyh, right on with your comment. "Assault weapon" is a made-up term, manufactured back in the 80s so politicians would have something to ban without giving up their own protection. Assault weapon and Assault RIFLE is not the same thing, and the term "semi automatic assault rifle" is an oxymoron. An assault rifle is fully automatic and therefore cannot be semiautomatic. "Military style" weapons would be fully automatic and are already illegal. My husband's military weapon he carries every day in Afghanistan is an assault rifle and is illegal for civilians. The AR-15 that looks exactly like it is NOT fully automatic and fires, oh, about 140 fewer rounds per minute. IMO, the recent talk about "Assault Weapons" plays on the average American's general lack of knowledge on the subject (I, for example, am most definitely not a firearms expert). That's exactly what politicians are counting on- ban a grade of weapons that look scary (but are no more dangerous or lethal/high rate of fire than your typical farm rifle) and look like you're REALLY DOING SOMETHING for the safety of this country. They're counting on us to be misinformed.

I will repost dewey's link, as I feel its worth everyone's time:


-- Posted by notinia on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 10:16 AM

Anyone that thinks these politicians are trying to solve this problem are quite naive. This whole fiasco is about scoring political points with those who identify with the left side of the political spectrum. There has been no solution suggested. We had a "assault weapon" ban for 5 years and it did nothing so it was allowed to sunset. It was never brought up for a vote to extend it. This is once again our politicians being politicians and playing us folks back home for saps. We get all excited and none of us will notice a change either way we just get wound up like little play toys over their nonsense.

-- Posted by Garry Owen on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 4:52 PM

First I want to say...This Brandon does not speak for all Independents. I am an Independent and disagree with him greatly.

I agree with Garry, obamnut said during 2012 to the Ohio ppl that he was not going to mess with the 2nd Admendment and believed in it himself. So now that a tragedy happened, he follows his left wing nuts and lies once more.

-- Posted by acerdj on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 6:42 AM

Welcome aboard, Brandon, and I agree with EmilyB that it's about time "independent & liberal thinkers" have someone to help balance the extreme right-wing leanings of the editors of this paper.

I'm sure you're not claiming or trying to speak for all Independents, but your first Opinion piece is sensible and well-written, and I look forward to reading more of your work.

-- Posted by JTennant on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 7:38 AM

I agree with his viewpoint, in a sense, Jean, but a couple of the research flaws found in his column have provoked discussion. I am by no means a conservative, nor an Obama hater (while I'm not a liberal), but his final point- that "something is being done, and that is good" is exactly what lawmakers on both sides want us to think. Making up a class of weapons so they can be banned is not "doing something", it is simply giving the appearance of "doing something." Yes, there are steps that can be taken to improve how this country deals with firearms. However, I have yet to be shown that steps are to be taken that make any more sense than the last time they approached gun control.

-- Posted by notinia on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 10:13 AM

If govt safety controls (over guns and other things) dont work, why do we have traffic laws, food and drug inspections, etc.? Why not just let everyone do whatever the heck they want? Why not just let everybody die from deaths preventable by a few reasonable regulations?

Until there can be a sane discussion about rational gun control, mass murder is the price we pay. Until we stop the all-or-nothing arguments, there can be no discussion.

Because gun control cannot prevent 100 percent of all deaths by all means (knives, cars, etc.) it does not mean we should let them all die. And a total ban on guns is just as stupid. All involved need to read the Second Amendment as a whole, not piecemeal for the parts they like.

Why can't we have a sane discussion?

-- Posted by helped_myself on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 12:27 PM

The argument that 100% of all deaths by all means (knives, drunk driving, etc.) can't be prevented doesn't mean we shouldn't save as many as possible. It doesn't mean we should make it as easy as possible for someone to kill us and remove any laws that can be applied to bring the killers to justice.

Most people approved the unconstitutional Patriot Act, profiling and torture, but God forbid, you should be a little inconvenienced to get a gun. Really.

-- Posted by helped_myself on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 12:34 PM

As far as making up terms like assault weapons, the conservatives wrote the book on oxymoronic labels for political purposes.

-- Posted by helped_myself on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 12:37 PM

There is no Constitutional prohibition on regulating and passing traffic laws, food and drug inspections, etc.

Unlike the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has heard very few cases involving the Second Amendment. With the First Amendment, the Court has painstakinlgy carved out situations in which the govenrment can abridge speech rights (i.e. fighting words, child pornography, etc.). In these instances the Court weighed the countervailing government interest against infringing on speech rights. In striking down/upholding laws, one of the Court's main concerns was ensuring the wasn't overly-broad (i.e. would also restrict speech in unintended ways.)

This issue is so difficult because we don't have any direction from the Court regarding what gun restrictions are Constitutional. I think we all agree that the intended purpose of gun regulation would be to lower the gun-crime rate (whether the law would succeed is another matter). I think we also agree that gun crime is a problem. Thus, any law would have to be tailored to the government's interest in reducing gun crime while not infringing on legitimate gun uses (the SC has defined home defense as a legitimate gun use, I honestly don't know whether the SC has said anything about hunting).

I think it is going to be very difficult to draft a law which bans certain firearms but allows citizens to retain other firearms and still withstand Supreme Court scrutiny. This is especially true when the only thing that separates the guns the governemnt wants to ban ("military-style") from the ones most people believe citizens should retain ("hunting rifles") is the way they look.

-- Posted by Sony on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 1:12 PM

You have to show id and sign in to get cold medicine for goodness sake, why not guns?

-- Posted by helped_myself on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 2:15 PM

I know! Let's have the parents of the little boy who had the bottom half of his face shot off define 'assault weapon'!

-- Posted by helped_myself on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 2:17 PM


-- Posted by Garry Owen on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 6:18 PM

acerdj: To quote Obama's AJ Rahm Emanual...

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

I don't own any so-called "assault weapons"...I only have "defense weapons". Just because a rifle or shotgun has a folding stock and pistol grip doesn't make it an assault weapon. Military grade assault weapons are full auto, have been illegal for ordinary citizens to own since 1934.

In a life or death situation, rules go right out the window. To win, you need to use everything at your disposal to stop your attacker, even fighting dirty if necessary.

Yeah Garry, I agree...wow.

-- Posted by Dennis the Menace on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 7:25 PM

"From a marketing point of view, you don't roll out new products in August." --White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, on why the Bush administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on war against Iraq, "New York Times" interview, Sept. 7, 2002

-- Posted by helped_myself on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 8:33 PM

helped_myself- your disdain for the "all or nothing" arguments on both sides of this issue is right on. However, why point out "conservatives wrote the book on oxymoronic definitions"- of course conservatives have done this. So have liberals. So have independents. POLITICIANS did this. The last time an entire class of weapons was outlawed, it was included in a large piece of anti-crime legislation that was popular by both parties, including conservatives. This is not new information, and to insinuate that politicians are only spreading this rhetoric now because conservatives have done it in the past is misleading. "Well, they did it first"... please. I don't care which side you fall on, making childish arguments does not suit your otherwise valid points. Nor does bringing up child victims of horrific violence for shock value. How is this a "sane discussion", which you repeatedly asked for? Finally, I would like to know where to purchase a weapon without showing ID. Really?

-- Posted by notinia on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:52 PM

The worst school killing in the US occurred in Bath, Michigan in 1927,44 people were killed and the guy responsible used a homemade bomb. Not having a access to a gun isn't going to stop the crazies who want to kill you. Oklahoma City happened with a U-Haul truck and fertilizer, 9/11 happened with planes.

Reinventing classifications of weapons and putting scary looking guns into that newly defined classification isn't going to make you any safer. Feel-good legislation isn't going to make you any safer. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws and look at how well that's working out for them, I hear they've had a couple dozen homicides so far this year... I wonder what the murder weapons were? Hmmm.

-- Posted by Dagny Taggart on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 10:47 PM

Dennis..... :) got me :) I also agree that you will use whatever to make sure you get away from your attacker.


-- Posted by acerdj on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:28 AM

notina, you call me out but didn't call out those that insinuated liberals attached a false label. Why not? My comment was a counter balance that conservatives use false labeling.

As far as victims, you ask why bring up victims during discussions on how to control gun violence? Really? When should victims be part of the discussion? Focusing on word definitions only, is just victimizing the dead all over again.

Guns can be bought from private sellers in many states, no ids, no background checks, no license needed to carry in public (concealed or not). All perfectly legal.

Dagny, The illegal weapons in Chicago and many states with stricter gun laws come from states with lax gun laws all legally bought and driven across borders. That's why national regulation is needed. But it appears that since there's not a 100% guaranteed fix to prevent people from killing other people, we shouldn't even try. Using your logic, we should throw out all drunk driving laws because people are still killed by drunk drivers. Do you always give up so easy on problem solving? Can't fix it in one try, so forget about it?

-- Posted by helped_myself on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 10:57 AM

Helped_myself your reasoning is so flawed it's almost not worth trying to debunk but your analogy to drunk driver fails because there are no positives for drunk drivers. There are many positives for private firearm ownership. When ever someone must support their argument with emotions instead of logic its obvious they can't make a good argument with facts. Its like saying if we can save even one child we must try. I say if we can save even one child we must try to over Roe Vs Wade.

-- Posted by Bison on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 11:46 AM

Comparing gun control regulations with drunk driving laws? Really? Drunk driving laws have been very successful at reducing the number of drunk driving related fatalities over the past few decades so how anybody could even entertain this as being a valid comparison is beyond me.

-- Posted by Dagny Taggart on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 11:54 AM


"As the 2nd amendment reads:As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

As stated by others, has nothing to do with hunting.

And for those that say it was written in the time of single shot muskets, I wonder, do you look at the freedom of speech the same? It was written before radio, TV and internet."

You make a good point, but I have a problem with a little of the overall ideal. The most overlooked thing about our Consititution is that it was written by people who knew that times do....and always will change. The word amendment means "change". The right to bear arms and the freedom of speech were just as important then as they are now, the only difference is what it entails and how we go about it. I look at freedom of speech and the righ to bear arms the same. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and get away with it. It means that the government can't punsih you for saying things. But again, this has limitaitions. The 2nd Amendement doesn't cover pornography or hate speech or criminal speech. Why....because there has to be a line. The right to bear arms is no different. I have no problem with the right to bear arms, but where's the line? This next part is just an honest question, my intention isn't to sound offensive. Why do average people "need" military grade weapons? Why does the average person "need" to own an AR-15 or an AK-47? The argument of "because they have the right to" doesn't seem very viable here to me. What practical purpose does it serve? We can use the "because they are gun collectors, or because they enjoy shooting them," but yet again, these arguments seem very shallow because you can be a gun collector....and not have access to military grade weapons, and you can enjoy shooting guns if you are denied access to military grade weapons. I guess my point is that amendments were constructed the way they were for a reason, because change is immenent. Placing restrictions on what guns the general public can own doesn't violate anything, it's simply "amending" with the times.

-- Posted by lastsonofoa on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 11:55 AM

lastsonofa you are correct. But amending the constitution isn't what the gun control crowd is talking about. They are talking about writing laws in violation of the constitution. Amending is a very different thing last done in the early 90's I think. The interesting thing about the musket argument is when the constitution was written thats all the government had also. Now the government has much more firepower then the citizens do. And we should not give up much more.

-- Posted by Bison on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 12:13 PM

helped_myself, I believe you were referring to dewey's comment? If so, I never saw the word liberal anywhere in it. Someone mentioned liberals shipping guns overseas... Anyway, please point out to me where I missed someone accusing only liberals of altering the terminology. And by all means, bring up the victims. However, the manner in which you chose to do it (referring to a child with his face blown off) smacks of mere shock value rather than portraying a logical argument (such as stating the number of children killed every year, or etc). That's my issue. Finally, the point of focusing on word definitions is important here because politicians are manipulating the definitions to put up a false front of "getting tough on guns". Deceit and doubletalk are huge parts of this issue. Calling attention to that is not ignoring the rest of the issue- you can talk about one part of a multi-faceted problem on a blog without losing sight of the rest.

-- Posted by notinia on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 12:26 PM


AK-47 is automatic, all ready illegal to own. AR-15 is semi-automatic. It is not the same. Please don't compare the two. Please review link posted by Dewey above.

-- Posted by retiredarmysarge on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 12:30 PM

notinia, I didn't say YOU blamed liberals for false labels, only that you called me out but not others.

If the actual result of gun violence is too shocking to even consider, we're really in deep doo doo.

Bison/Dagney, don't like my analogy? Ok, let's try the First Amendment. How can you claim there's no positive in that? Yet there are restrictions for safety (can't yell fire in a crowded theater). But evidentally many feel you can skip that part and go right to bringing in loaded weapons.

Here's another. Cold medicine. That's another positive. But to control the abuse of it for creating meth, there are now controls for it. Just like with the guns, you can still get them, use them, etc. Just have to put up with a little inconvenience to try and stop crime.

You want the gov't to enforce your rights to shoot those that are protecting those rights? This country decided to be run by the vote not the gun. Shooting the police and the military carrying out laws created by the people you elect is how you'd show your love of country? That's so twisted. Anyway, no country with all of it's $ and organization can defeat the US military, much less individual gun owners.

If people fear and loath their own gov't as much as expressed over the gun control topic, I challenge them to try and find a better gov't elsewhere.

The NRA says to enforce the gun laws we have but then gets laws made that keep ATF from gathering any info on them. Guns can be sold to drunks. It can't be asked which gun shops are selling guns to criminals, etc.

Why do people that claim to love their country, love to hate it?

-- Posted by helped_myself on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 3:27 PM

What I'm asking for, helped_myself, is for you to point me towards the comments on this blog that stated that liberals were the ones falsifying information. I'm not seeing them. I'm also not saying the results of gun violence aren't shocking, but saying that your bringing them up in a way that is meant to bring the mental image of a child with his face blown off is what I'd call using that image as shock value, and is not really contributing to the discussion or providing useful information. Finally, you can dislike the government without disliking the country.

-- Posted by notinia on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 5:06 PM

The govt is US! If you dislike the govt, you dislike yourself. How is the country different than the govt?

-- Posted by helped_myself on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 7:14 PM

Mass murder took off when Ronnie the Rat Reagan dismantled the mental hospitals by severely cutting Medicaid funding. Thanks to Tricky Dick Nixon we were blessed with HMO's. Now look where we're at.

Almost every town in the country has mentally ill people walking around unattended who need to be.

-- Posted by Doctlby on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 7:48 PM

Our government gets more out of touch and further displaced from the citizens as the government gets bigger. This is caused by actions in both parties as they play to their loyal supporters. Do you ever wonder how politicians from both parties go to DC with modest wealth and ten years later they are very wealthy. This is mostly legal gains from reelection funds and whatnot but it is the reason they want to stay there. They pass laws that don't apply to them selves and pull all sorts of shenanigans but we reelect them. They quietly pass things like Bush's home security act that allows citizens to be spied on without search warrants. The democrats howled and do nothing. And Obama acting like a king doing executive orders to get around congress. And the republicans howl and do nothing. And the government becomes less by the people and for the people and more out of control. This was all foreseen by the founders and hence the 2nd amendment. Not for hunting or collecting but to keep the elected from becoming self appointed Hugo Chavez types. Most of us can't imagine this in our country but we have slowly moved closer to this in my lifetime. The pace has quickened since 9/11

-- Posted by Garry Owen on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:22 PM

The government is NOT the people. I don't elect all the senators and representatives, and I did not vote for the eventual winners of either of our past three elections. I respect their offices and that a majority of the people in our country chose them (in some cases), However, I certainly don't agree with all of their policies, decisions, laws, etc. I certainly don't consider our lawmakers an extension of myself, especially if they are deliberately moving words around to appease the masses while doing nothing of substance (on this subject). A country is a physical area, called a common name and characterized by the people who live there. I can love the country I live in- its people, its beauty, its advantages- without identifying myself as being defined by a government I would not have chosen.

-- Posted by notinia on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:45 PM

I can not believe how easily distracted people have become. You talk about {our} government like the people you see make the decisions. Our destinies are being decided behind closed doors by people who aren't elected to anything. And most aren't even from this country. You can poke fun of me if you want but just keep an open mind and think about what happens on a daily basis. Obama doesn't have to mess with the second amendment, he will leave that up to the U.N. The latest arms treaty that he's ready to sign is all about weapons being taken away from every citizen in every country in the world. Do your homework.

-- Posted by trybeinghonest on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 6:53 AM

@trybeinghonest - That rumor has been going around since 2010. It's simply not true.


-- Posted by Sony on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 8:19 AM

What makes you think it's a rumor. Even if the truth was proved to you, I get the feeling you wouldn't believe it because you don't want to.

-- Posted by trybeinghonest on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 5:53 PM

If you have proof, I would love to hear it.

I think it is a rumor because the list of things that has to happen for the treaty to become the supreme law of the land is immense. Here is the support for my position:

A. Even for a Democrat, banning all arms would be hugely unpopular.

B. The treaty's enforcement would be impossible. It would require armed government officers to go into every home in America and actively confiscate weapons. That would be a monumental task the likes of which the country has never seen.

C. It is (at best) debatable whether the arms treaty (in its current form) purports to regulate domestic weapon ownership.

D. The president has said he won't sign the treaty if it purports to regulate domestic weapon ownership.

E. Even if the president signs the treaty, it still has to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. These are people who (I assume) would like to be re-elected at some point.

F. Even if the president signs the treaty and the Senate ratifies the treaty, the Constitution still supersedes a treaty (says the Supreme Court).

-- Posted by Sony on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 6:47 PM

I'm just saying, keep your eyes open. We can't get so caught up in this or that definition or who said what that we lose track of the big picture. Do I distrust politicians? I don't want to but I don't think they leave us any choice.

-- Posted by trybeinghonest on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 7:08 PM

Too bad some people think "doing your home work" means reading a Facebook post....

-- Posted by deweyh on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 7:48 PM

I don't have facebook. When I do my homework on an issue I'm concerned about, I find as much information as I can. Then I take one side and try to prove it to be right. Then I take the other side and do the same thing, the whole time running every scenario I can think of to make sense of why there could be such a different range of truths. I consider the sources and their credibility. I do usually find Snopes to be very accurate, but the wording they sometimes use subtly twists an answer in a different direction. Try it. You'll find many daily situations might be a little different than what a soundbite tells you it is.

-- Posted by trybeinghonest on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 6:46 AM


This is an on going event with the UN. The congress is even looking at pulling away from the UN. It Will Be Interesting to see what happens in March.

Sony....the pres always says one thing and does another. He is notorious for doing it.

-- Posted by acerdj on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 7:51 AM

Read "Top Secret America" by Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post author Dana Priest. You'll be amazed.

Did you know that the majority of our intelligence community is now privitized? There are now over 850,000 private citizens with top secret clearances. At this very moment ther are 850 FEMA camps scattered throughout the country and fully staffed by NATO forces. The largest is in Anchorage Alaska and is capable of holding 2 1/2 million.

If you don't read the book check out The Washington Post website. Like I said before, you'll be amazed. And infuriated I hope.

-- Posted by Doctlby on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 6:53 PM

Looking at murder rate stats from Dept. of Justice, rates are half what they were in 1980 when they peaked at 10.2 per 100k down to 4.8 in 2010.

-- Posted by clayfarmer on Sun, Jan 27, 2013, at 7:13 AM

If you think the military is using semi automatic weapons, you're a delusional idiot.

Also the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. It's about resisting your particular style of tyranny.

Also some people do use .223 rounds for deer hunting in other states. That you think the gun looks scary doesn't make it an "assault weapon." Those are automatic weapons which are already banned, though I'd argue they shouldn't be. "Assault rifle" is a political term. Nothing more.

This country doesn't have a gun problem. Blaming isolated crazies going postal doesn't warrant disarmament and criminalizing millions of gun owners. It has a gang problem. Gangs that flourish under the liberal, progressive government that whines like this article and is always ready to plunder from one to give to another and keep any criminal from justice and accountability.

-- Posted by jlees on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 3:21 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Brandon Barb
Introverted Ramblings