Way to Go, Connecticut Gun Owners!

Did you see this Breitbart article?  Mark Meckler writes:

Did you know that quietly–very quietly thanks to a biased media–tens of thousands of American citizens delivered a message about the limits of government?

Did you know that citizens of one state engaged in a mass act of civil disobedience that has left statist officials from both parties scratching their heads as an entire regulatory scheme collapsed?

Last week, Connecticut politicians were shocked to find out that only a fraction of Connecticut gun owners obeyed a state directive to come forward, declare their weapons, and register them with the government.

In other words, Connecticut forced people to register their firearms and NO ONE DID IT!

I LOVE that sign that the guy is holding up, too.

Way to go, Connecticut!

Read more on the Patheos Faith and Family Channel, fan me on Facebook and follow this blog on Twitter!

 

 

Buy our books!
  • Snow66

    Yes, we know how much your family loves guns. Your mother bought an assault rifle for your father for Christmas! Right after the Newtown massacre. A whole class of living breathing 5 and 6 year olds gunned down in their classroom. Their tiny heads blown away. Your mother bought that gun for your father because people, like the parents of these kids, wanted more gun control in the wake of this tragedy. Didn’t she say it was her act of civil disobedience? She joked about it. He got the gun and she got the rack. And you wonder why your family is so hated by normal people.

    • Anne Mills

      Unfortunately, when good people are disarmed the only one left with the weapons is the criminal. Very sorry there weren’t a few armed teachers there – some young lives may have been saved.

      • Snow66

        Delusional. You have those NRA, ted nugent talking points memorized. congratulations.

      • Snow66

        Exactly. There were many armed people there. Can you imagine if everyone pulled out there guns and started shooting?
        They say the same thing about the movie theatre massacre. If just one other person had a gun, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, a shoot out in a dark theatre. Can you say more deaths.

      • Michelle Erb

        She was only able to get him when his magazine ran out. If we had not allowed him to easily buy an extended magazine, Christina Taylor Green would still be alive since she was about the 20th shot.

        • Michelle Erb

          I agree with you. Another gun owner could not stop him. The only way to stop him was when he had to change magazines.

          Street Criminals will always be able to get guns, but the majority of the time they use them on other street criminals.

          The thing about these young men who commit mass shootings is they tend to be socially inept and tend to get their guns through legal channels.

          Adam Lanza even tried to buy a gun on his own and failed for being underage. If his mother had not supplied him with an arsenal, or the other mass shooters had not been able to easily purchase weapons that could get off so many shots in a short period, lives would definitely have been saved.

      • Katepatate

        Responsible gun owners. What’s the problem?

    • Katepatate

      Only hateful people hate the Palins. You hater, you.

      • Mickey Donovan

        You’re wrong. No one hates the Palins. Most of us are laughing at their stupidity, their hypocrisy, their ignorance and their phoney faith. So, tell us, what is it about the Palins that you revere?

  • Snow66

    I hope you never have to face the living nightmare the Newtown parents live daily. The fact that having some gun control is more offensive to you and your family than dead 6 year olds says a lot about you.

    You hate abortion and premarital sex, but when it comes to living, breathing kids being blown to bits by bullets, meh. The gun rules. Very twisted.

    • Anne Mills

      If my child were in that school I would wish someone were there with the ability to protect her. Why should our children be sitting ducks. Someone with a gun could have at least had the opportunity to stop the carnage. I don’t enter establishments that say “no weapons”. That means the only person that will come through the door with a weapon is going to be a criminal. I know the mainstream media doesn’t share the news of how many crimes are stopped by people carrying guns the assailants didn’t know about it. Those are in the news more and more. Lives are being saved by good people arming themselves. Newtown was tragic. I wish there had been an armed teacher there to give those kids a fighting chance.

      • Snow66

        That is crazy. What has America come too. Guns, guns and more guns. Yeah, let’s arm the teachers, the janitor, everyone! So one day, a teacher or another employee has had enough and pulls out the gun that he’s been given to “protect the children” and starts shooting. No guns, no guns, no guns. What is wrong with you people.

        • KHSoldier&Writer

          Ok, Snow. No guns. How are you going to collect them? Who is going to go door to door in the inner cities and collect all of the illegal, unregistered weapons? Or are you only focused on law abiding citizens who purchasd them legally?

        • Katepatate

          Yes. I would rather have a gun and not need it than need it and not have one. If a teacher wanted to shoot up a school, he or she would have already done it. Blame the murderer, not the gun. Using your logic we need to get rid of knives, rope, cars, and any other thing that has been used in the course of a murder.

          • rjudge

            “If a teacher wanted to shoot up a school, he or she would have already done it.”

            Absolutely not true.

            Analogy: this past week, a 45 year old guy was accused of kidnapping and murdering a little 10 year old girl in Springfield, Missouri. He snatched her off of the street.

            That guy had been employed for 16 years at a middle school, where he was employed as an assistant teacher and football coach. Why did he wait 16 years to commit such a heinous act? Same with a gun. Look at that idiot Dunn in Florida who shot a totally innocent kid in his car. He had been a gun owner for awhile before he decided he would kill that young man.

            Your last statement is ridiculous as well. Guns are designed to kill. Further, in the case of mass murders, you don’t hear about many people being purposely killed by knives, rope, cars, etc. all at once.

            While some may wish all guns to go away, many realize that that is not possible. All we are asking for is more restrictive gun laws. Yes, you can say that we should enforce current gun laws, but that does not and should not preclude things such as more strict background checks. Some may say that registering guns will not prevent crime, but it may help track crime. The Missouri state legislature is trying to pass legislation that would outlaw state law enforcement from enforcing federal gun laws. Ridiculous. But here is something more ridiculous: a Democrat introduced an amendment to pending legislation that would require firearms owners to report within 72 hours firearms that had been stolen. Republicans originally passed that amendment. But when the NRA heard about it, republicans reversed course and took that amendment out.

            Why, why, why are gun nuts so adverse to little things which might help prevent crime or help track crime? It is ridiculous. You people value your own selfish “freedom” over the lives of people you don’t even know, little kids at Sandy Hook. It is so sad.

      • Katepatate

        In Israel every single adult has a gun. Maybe that is the way we should go. That would definitely cut down the killing by cowards.

      • rjudge

        I wish Adam Lanza, a mentally disturbed person, had no access to guns. That would have allowed those kids to live.

        I wish that, because he had access to guns, his mother had no legal access to the higher capacity magazines. That would have given some of those kids a better chance at living.

        There were armed guards at Columbine. They stopped nothing.

    • Snow66

      Seriously, I mean seriously????? This was a fricken elementary school!!!!! People like you that think more guns equal less gun deaths are delusional.
      So now you want everyone armed. What’s next, mom and dad packing a 9mm in little Billy’s lunchbox?

      • Katepatate

        Adults only. You are the crazy one.

      • rjudge

        In the last few months, there have been at least 2 stories on local news where counties south of where I live have reported guns, and guns only, being stolen from homes. I live in Missouri. Missouri republicans just stripped out an amendment to an extreme pro-gun law, an amendment which would have required that firearms’ owners report if their guns are stolen. These people are crazy; they are extremists; cars are required to be registered, but when it comes to guns, hell, no. It’s taking away their “freedumbs!”

    • redrum01

      You know those “assault” weapons were registered to Nancy Lanza & not her son Adam right? He kinda killed her to gain access to them, so tell me what kind of registration would have prevented that?

    • 1gunner

      What a stupid comment – the idiot behind the trigger is what killed those little kids. Liberal goons always blaming an object instead of the person behind the violence. Hey, I hope you never have to face the living nightmare of having a drunk driver (in a car) run over a family member an live the nightmare daily when you see cars on the road. Sheesh…

      • 1MiddleRoader

        Exactly, but drunk driving offenses have declined over the years, due largely to enforcement and rules. And when a drunk driver does kill or hurt someone, you usually can figure out who did, even when the driver flees the scene. Not always the case with gun crimes. I don’t think registering even all guns will solve gun violence nor solve gun crimes, but it’s one small part of it.

        • rjudge

          Moreover, guns are designed to kill. Cars and alcohol are not. Manufacturers continually strive to make cars safer; there are big efforts continuing to get drunk drivers off of the road. In fact, I’ve recently heard talk of lowering the blood alcohol content allowed for driving to below the current .08.

          • redraider93

            And cars kill thousands more than guns every day. Doesn’t make one jot of difference the intent.

            Oh, but I forgot — leftists like to FEEL GOOD about things instead of real solutions…

          • rjudge

            You’re so full of it. It does make a difference of the intent. Further, guns can kill from quite a distance away. I don’t hear about cars killing people from 100, 200 feet away.

            Oh, I forgot. Righties often are morons who have no common sense.

    • Katepatate

      If a teacher had had a gun, those children would be alive now. It’s easier for a criminal to get a gun than a law abiding citizen. You are the one who is twisted especially if you are for abortion and premarital sex.

      • rjudge

        Not necessarily true.

        If there had been legislation to prohibit the larger magazines, perhaps some of those kids might still be alive today. Adam Lanza brought only the larger magazines to that school. He left the smaller magazines at home. Why? Certainly, it was because he wanted to cause the maximum amount of damage and casualties.

        It does seem as if Lanza’s mother was law-abiding, so if there had been legislation prohibiting those larger magazines, his mother likely would not have tried to obtain any.

        I also want to point out that there were armed guards at Columbine. They didn’t stop anything.

        • redraider93

          When you have unarmed targets, the extra couple of seconds to swap out smaller magazines is a nuisance, but a negligible difference. This law is stupid and does nothing but make moron leftists FEEL good…

          • rjudge

            Bull. An extra couple of seconds can make a difference. The Tuscon shooter, Loughner, was taken down when he was changing out his magazine.

            Only rightie morons think they are all knowledgeable about things. Morons, like the palins, make me puke.

    • Katepatate

      Of course they do. I can imagine one day one of these do-gooders may be in a position where if a law abiding citizen had a gun on him, their woosie butts would be saved and they’d be glad.

    • Susan Michelle Kirkland

      I did face that Snow66. I was at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy Virginia on January 16, 2002 when Peter O opened fire. Let me tell you about guns lady. Our Dean was killed, a friend of mine was killed and one of my professors killed. he walked into the student lounge and opened fire after killing our Dean and Professor. 3 other ladies were shot and survived. He walked out of the student lounge to reload and open fire on the students who had run outside. Upon re-loading, he was accosted by 3 students, who were also prior police officers and had concealed weapons permits. They stopped him from killing more until our fervent police force, who were finishing their lunch arrived. Had it not been for those three brave students, we would have faced a larger massacre. Peter’s gun, unregistered and unknown how it was obtained. It was obtained illegally. Now you want to talk about how it feels. I know, I survived it, along with 300 other people in a small town. Yes, these shootings are horrific. But, we have got to arm our citizens to stop this nonsense.
      During WWII, do you know why Japan refused to enter the United States. One of the military leaders made the statement about American citizens to the fact that there would be a hiding American with a gun, behind every blade of grass, and he was absolutely right. We didn’t have these problems then, and everyone was armed. There was no debate about having weapons, it was the American norm. We protect this country from invasion by being armed. We protect our homes by being armed. We protect ourselves when we travel, by being armed. Being armed is not the issue. The issue is the quality of people living here and the fact that human life has been devalued over time.
      I read daily about how an 80 year old lady thwarted a robbery in her home, or how a teenager saved herself from being robbed or raped in her home by being armed. Our problem is not gun control. Our problem is the hypocritical hate oozing into the leftist agenda against our fellow Americans. And for your liberal idiots who do not understand Hitler. You are right, part of the German citizenry did not have to disarm. The Jews were targeted and told to license weapons. Upon doing so, the government knew exactly where to find them once they decided to disarm them, they knew exactly who had what. Not only did they disarm them, but we know the rest as history called the holocaust. If you think this regime will not turn on you, then you are oblivious to history. By the way, I am a registered proud, gun owner. MY Family and my family’s safety is first!

  • Anne Mills

    Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Ever heard that? If there had been an armed teacher at that school, there may have been lives saved. As it was, they were helpless. It’s not about money. It’s about protecting our children. If two schools were side by side and equal in every other way, but one had armed guards or teachers and one didn’t allow it, I’d be sending my child to the school with the armed officers. Hitler, Stalin and others first had citizens register their guns. Later, guns were confiscated. Later, they removed millions of their own unarmed citizens from their homes and murdered them. I’m not walking into a coffee house with a no weapons sign. That would mean the only person entering with a weapon would be a criminal and we would all be sitting ducks. Why is it that the cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime (Chicago, New York)? Because their citizens are unarmed and helpless against the criminals and the criminals know it. You want your kids in an unarmed school, your business. I can’t stay at a school all day and try to throw my body over as many children as possible. I want someone there who can protect our children.

    • Snow66

      OMG, check your gun death rates by state. Almost all the highest are red states, with Alaska right up there in the top 10.

      • CB

        That is patently false, Snow66. Alaska is right in the middle and red and blue states are evenly mixed all the way from #1 (which is actually the very blue Washington D.C.) to #51 (Vermont).

        Another inconvenient fact for you is that it is invariably cities that have the largest effect on gun death rates per state, and cities are almost without exception governed by Democrats and their policies.

        Please do a little actual research before you spout of false information.

      • Katepatate

        Wrong.

        • Snow66

          Prove it, gun fondler.

    • Michelle Erb

      Do you keep up with the number of accidental shootings every single day? Even by law enforcement and so called experts teaching gun safety?

      As horrible as the mass shootings are, they are still statistically rare. Putting more guns in schools, exponentially raises the odds of innocent children getting shot.

      Have your security guards for what little they can help, and increase other safety measures. But I hear too many stories of the stupid decisions made by teachers who are not armed, to trust most of them with firearms around our children.

      If you really want to prevent mass shootings, enact the reasonable gun control measures that Ronald Reagan endorsed. The kind that Bristol is so happy that some Connecticut citizens are opposing.

      • Katepatate

        Do you keep track of all the deaths by accident with people smoking marijuana and driving. Outlaw marijuana or cars? Your pick.

    • Michelle Erb

      You seriously think the Germans were unarmed under Hitler? How ignorant can you be? Did you ever hear of World War II? Who do you think was fighting on the German side? They were German citizens armed to the teeth.

      I am so tired of people rewriting history and ignoring the fact that a large percentage of the German people loved Hitler and supported him. That is what happens when you hate people based on their race or religion, and start scapegoating them for your problems. (That is a little history the Muslim hating tea party could stand to learn from).

      Hitler actually loosened gun restrictions. The only people to lose their guns were the Jews and other targeted groups who also lost everything else they owned.. Even if they were armed, the Jews could not have stood up to the police, the army, and local citizenry.

      • Richard Smit

        You are wrong. hitler had never the support of the Majority of the German People.

    • Katepatate

      They don’t. And most countries don’t allow every convict on earth to illegally come into their country. Plus most countries are much smaller than the U.S.

    • Phil Ryan

      “those who do not learn history.” Ah the irony, written by a person who clearly has zero knowledge of history.

  • 1MiddleRoader

    You may like the sign, Bristol, but it’s inaccurate. He’s no longer a law-abiding citizen. He’s entitled to his act of civil disobedience, but he also has to accept the consequences of breaking the law (which, let’s face it, in this case, will probably be nil.)

    • Katepatate

      Bet you are for amnesty.

      • 1MiddleRoader

        Not that it has anything to do with this thread, but I am for a “pathway to citizenship,” just like Sarah Palin used to be.

  • 1MiddleRoader

    Although the Breitbart article makes it more clear, Bristol’s does not– the registration applies only to certain types of guns and ammo, which became illegal to purchase in Jan, but owners could have kept them legally if they had registered them. Even the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, which is challenging the new law, advised gun owners to register them.

    • Katepatate

      First they come for one type of gun, then another and finally them all. Do not trust the government. Especially the one we have now.

  • Sue B

    I’m really sorry you have to read some of these disgusting, judgemental comments – you truly don’t deserve them. I love that some brave patriots are becoming more vocal and standing up to this government. Thanks for sharing, Bristol. You’re a gem.

    • Snow66

      Ya, she does deserve them. Brave patriots. What a laugh. It’s so brave not registering your assault rifle.

      • 1gunner

        Right – they are ‘brave’ because they aren’t cowering to the government infringement of their 2nd Amendment Right. Also – ‘assault’ rifle is a misnomer. TRUE assault rifles are automatic fire capable. Only the left social control goons would legislate the word ‘assault’ into their legalize to impart in people’s minds that these firearms are a danger to society…now that’s a ‘laugh’

      • Katepatate

        My down vote on you did not register. Just want you to know you got one.

        • keysrat

          Mine didn’t either Snow66

          • Snow66

            I’ve read some of your other blog comments in your profile. Quite revealing. I believe you would agree with ted nugents latest description of the President.

          • keysrat

            I have my own opinion of Obama. I believe millions have been spent to cover his past, his college transcript, the loss of his and his wife law license. I believe he is a patsy for organized socialist, Marxist, communist in this country and outside the US. I believe George Soras is a major benefactor. I believe Obama is muslim and he supports the brotherhood in this country and abroad. I believe at least 4 people have been killed on his behalf to cover his past. And I believe he directed the deaths of Seal Team 6. I think he is a very evil person and that our country will pay for years for the damage he has done. I have also read some of your blogs and I believe you are probably a liberal troll.

          • keysrat

            You noticed I hope that I don’t studder!! And I’m not Racist ~ It’s not the Black or the White Obama, its the man.

          • justme

            Racist

          • 1MiddleRoader

            That’s a lot of conspiracy theories rattling around in that noggin of yours. But I guess they have the room.

        • Snow66

          I’m so hurt

        • Snow66

          One of Katepatates other blog posts:

          Never thought I would live to see the last days, but I truly believe we are living them with our president becoming a dictator and a pope who doesn’t believe Christ is the only way. Glad when the rapture comes. Sad for those who don’t believe.

          These are the people the Palins attract. Lol. The Palin cult.

  • Snow66

    I love the sign in the picture. Is that sarah’s buddy, nugent holding that sign?

    • Michelle Erb

      Well I do not think Nugent is a CONVICTED sex offender at least, just a confessed one.

  • TheBigMan1234

    What would registering an assault rifle do to combat violence? You may know where they are but what stops someone from going crazy and using it? What’s the end goal of the registration process? Do you think a criminal who commits crimes with a gun worries about registration? Registering anything here in the US is just another form of taxation. What does registering anything get you? Things that are registered get stolen everyday.

    How about registering the severely unstable?

    • Michelle Erb

      Connecticut is trying to enact the type of reasonable gun legislation that Ronald Reagan supported. You may be right, maybe they should have made everyone forfeit the weapons they already owned.

      Instead they decided to do those idiots a favor and grandfather their weapons in. They are still free to own literally a ton of guns and not register them. But if they want to keep the type that are now illegal to purchase, they should accept the opportunity they are being offered.

      But it is their choice. How very fascist of Connecticut.

      • Katepatate

        There is no “reasonable” gun legislation except for arresting anyone who uses them unlawfully in a crime and then it should be life imprisonment. Otherwise, leave the law abiding citizens alone.

  • 1MiddleRoader

    Registering certain types of guns and ammo is a completely separate issue from whether there should be teachers or guards with guns in schools. That, IMO, should be decided by local school districts in compliance with federal and state laws. However, if I were a parent sending my kid to a school where there are armed adults, I sure would want those guns to be registered, if not with the government, at least with the school. And I would want the reassurance of knowing that those adults were submitted to a background check (which they should have anyway, to work in a school),and that they were properly trained in using their weapon.

    • redrum01

      What you described; an armed adult carrying a weapon outside their home would require a CPL permit. Which means they have already registered with the state, background checked & have completed a CPL class which teaches firearms safety, laws, range time & some tactical training

      • 1MiddleRoader

        Good points, duly noted. However, that brings up the question: If gun owners are OK with registering their handguns (I know that some are not, but I think most are), why is it such a big deal to also register their “more dangerous” guns? I realize that part of it has to do with guarding your “castle,” as opposed to carrying a weapon in a public place, but it’s not all that hard to conceal an assault weapon (under a coat, etc.), or disassemble it and carry it into a public place.

        • redrum01

          “If gun owners are OK with registering their handguns (I know that some are not, but I think most are),”

          That is where you are very wrong, not very many support a national gun registry. What would a registry of guns be good for? How would that stop crime? You do know serial number of guns sold are traceable already right?

          • 1MiddleRoader

            Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean a national registry. I meant registering with the state to get a CPL license, as per your previous comment. When you get a license, you are accountable, at least to some degree. And licenses need to be renewed every 5 years or so. a serial nr on a gun sold many years ago isn’t very useful. But I agree licensing/registering won’t stop crime, just like registering cars doesn’t stop accidents. I still think it’s a good thing.

          • keysrat

            You are still missing the point!!!! It is the individual that is licensed NOT the guns. At this point they have no business knowing how many or what kind of guns I own. All they need to know is that I am licensed to carry, that I have been fingerprinted, that I have had a State and Federal Background check and that I completed a class with written test and a gun range test before I was licensed. My license was issued by DMV and looks like my Drivers License except a different color. If I am stopped by an officer, I must present both licenses to him at the same time. It is the person not the gun!!!!!!

          • redrum01

            A state registry for guns, kinda like the medical marijuana licenses in the state of MI….that the federal government then requested full access to?

          • redraider93

            I am licensed to carry concealed, but my weapon(s) are not registered….

        • George Blackshear

          Let me explain why people do not want to register their guns, it lets a tyrannical government know what you have and where to come get it, if you trust your government then register your guns, if you do not trust Obama and his little minions then I would say do not register your guns, like registering ammo is just another form of gun registration, Hitler did it, Stalin did it and where did that get the people massacred, so just say no to gun registration, because I do not trust our government as far as I could throw them.

      • redraider93

        In most, but not all states. Many states recognize the full meaning of the 2nd amendment and allow Constitutional carry without onerous restrictions upon law-abiding citizens…

        • redrum01

          That would be open carry. We have that in MI as well which requires no CPL license

    • keysrat

      There is a difference between registering you guns and individuals having a concealed weapons permit which included background check and fingerprinting and the training that is require to achieve one. But if is not the state or federal governments business how many or what kind of guns I have as long as I am personally a responsible citizen. It would then be the school or districts responsibility to only allow individual to carry who have a CWP.

  • Katepatate

    Never give up your guns. Never. They want us to be sitting ducks.

  • Katepatate

    The down votes are not working so I am giving you a down vote.

  • 1MiddleRoader

    Interesting… Ted Nugent has (sort of ) apologized for calling Obama a “subhuman mongrel”. Rand Paul has said he should apologize, and also, a bit more grudgingly, Rick Perry and Ted Cruz. But not Miss Sarah!! What’s good enough for the Nuge (pre-apology), is good enough for her! Personally, while I get the implications of the mongrel word, it’s basically just name-calling. I think the violent rhetoric and mischaracterizations in his tirades are worse. Nobody seriously believes Obama is literally a dog. But some folks do believe that he is Communist, Muslim, not born in the US, hates the US, etc., so for me, those comments are worse. BTW, Nugent has been known to use the r-word in public. (you know, the one she thought Rahm Emmanuel should be fired for using.) I don’t know if Sarah is aware of that, but if so, would that be “good enough for her?” or would she condemn it?

    • Richard Smit

      Why are you on this blog if you hate Palin so much?

      • Gay_for_Jesus

        Why are you on the internet rambling about stupid shit?

      • 1MiddleRoader

        Short answer: I wanted to join debate club in high school, but was too shy and quiet back then.

        • Richard Smit

          this blog is only for Palin supporters!

      • 1MiddleRoader

        Longer answer: I don’t hate Palin and I suspect you know that. In fact, I admire her personal story. I even think she was a pretty good governor, although I am no expert in Alaskan politics. However, I do think she has become radicalized in the past 5 years or so; I don’t think she would govern today as she did then. I don’t hate Bristol either. I respect her choice to have her child, and to advocate against teenage pregnancies. I just happen not to agree with most of their political views. I try to be open-minded and listen to opposing views and express mine But I WILL call Sarah and/or Bristol out when I think they are being hypocritical, as I believe Sarah was with the Nugent thing.
        To quote Sarah herself: “And those who disagree with us on some issues, they’re not our enemies, they’re our sisters and brothers. They’re our neighbors and friends. It’s time we all stop preaching to the choir and let’s grow.”

  • keysrat

    No down votes allow on the site. But you are wrong. This is my right to own guns. This is my right to protect my family. My obligation to society is the be licensed to carry. Have a background check, fingerprinted, take class, pass test, go to shooting range pass test and only then get licensed. What kind of gun I choose to carry is no ones business.

  • Phil Ryan

    It is sad that this dimwitted dullard with a blog has no insight into anything. Oh, wait sorry. It is in her DNA. Her mother is a dimwitted dullard with no insight into anything. She would be rendered mute (oh, god would that were to happen) if she didn’t have Breitbart “news” to cut and paste.

    • pwrserge

      So you approve of violating the first as well as the second amendment? Why don’t you just skip the middle man and move to North Korea. I’m sure they will love you long time.

      • Phil Ryan

        Why is it people like you have this 1950s cold war mentality, that everyone who disagrees you is a card carrying commie. It is pathetic. She is entitled to have her opinion. Except that it is not her opinion… It’s fed to her by Breitbart far right propaganda. I am an entitled to say that her opinion is dimwitted. Much like yours.

        • pwrserge

          Well if your position does not depend on infringing on my rights, I might choose nicer words. However, you still have no legal authority to regulate arms in any way. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

  • Richard Smit

    Bristol is the writer of this blog!

    • Richard Smit

      its not a dream. it is true!

    • Richard Smit

      Yes she really is!

      • Richard Smit

        prove it!

        • Richard Smit

          No you have not!

          • Richard Smit

            bristol is still a wonderful person!

          • Snow66

            I have a feeling that your posts are sarcasm. If so, bravo Richard, bravo.

          • Richard Smit

            My post are not Sarcasm! I love Sarah Palin and her Family very much! they are wonderful people! and I will always support and defend them!

          • Snow66

            Bravo Richard. I like it. You really do play the obsessed palin fan well. Lol

          • 1MiddleRoader

            Look, I wouldn’t bet money either way on whether Bristol writes this blog. My guess is that she posts the family stuff on her own, and consults/collaborates with Ms. French on the more political topics. But clicking on the pic and seeing someone else’s name just means that person was somehow involved. You can believe that she doesn’t write this blog, but it’s not a proven fact.

  • Richard Smit

    Palin haters who are comming to this Blog are just jealous of Sarah Palin!

    • Richard Smit

      looks like you are also jealous of her!

    • Snow66

      Face it Richard, your star is fading fast. She has forever attached herself to her buddy ted nugent. The pedophile, pants pooping, misogynist, washed up old rocker. She has shown herself to be a hateful, bitter, angry, washed up hag trying desperately to keep herself relevant. It’s really sad. Like a child star, who ends up doing porn just to keep their face in the National Enquirer. Sarah is a political pornstar. Tea Party porn. Guns and God porn. Sorry to burst your bubble Richard, but I don’t get jealous of aging, washed up pornstars.

    • Michael Cummings

      Amen
      Jealousy is a powerful emotion
      Cain kill Abel & blamed God his keeper afterward
      Abel’s blood cried out for vengeance not like Jesus
      The first murderer born from having his birthright stolen

      Our star is doing well and is America’s only hope
      Her family taken advantage of continually but she never blamed anyone
      Obama translated hatred for his job
      Sacrificing the very people who voted for him
      People who for 35 years haven’t had a vacation
      Whose access to their finances was taken away dishonestly
      By a recession caused by the very people Obama works for
      From inheritances from war heroes who personally saved us in WW2
      Who didn’t like racism or slavery more than this administration obviously
      Christians supporting democracy of which these haters wouldn’t understand

      http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+malcolm+x+pose&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=uFIKU629HuaHygG48ICYAg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAA&biw=360&bih=567#biv=i%7C23%3Bd%7CzIs_D0B_hUQ3vM%3A

      • Michael Cummings

        Anyone who has shaken there head fast has suffered “head trauma”.
        How was that kind to point a finger at what you think deserves ridicule?
        I don’t recognize your “nickname” Vbnh.
        Do you have a problem with Christians who are asked to be kind to people bearing their burdens?
        Or are you another Democratic “share and share alike” except for your stuff?

      • Snow66

        She’s done Michael. She’s jumped the shark by aligning herself with the pedophile pants pooping draft dodger. Better start the search for a new Tea Party star. I hear Ted Cruz looked fantastic in his paisley bathrobe while bathroom creeping in college.

        • 1MiddleRoader

          I doubt she’ll ever run for political office (which is why she doesn’t have to go the Cruz route and say Nuge’s language was offensive), but she’s far from done. She has a lot of followers still. But I do think she has lost a lot of her credibility. Remember her outrage over Letterman’s “sexually perverted” joke?
          Compare to Nugent’s song:
          “Jailbait you look so good to me Jailbait won’t you set me free Jailbait you look fine fine fine I know I’ve got to have you in a matter of time
          Well I don’t care if you’re just thirteen You look too good to be true I just know that you’re probably clean There’s one lil’ thing I got to do to you.”
          Now I personally don’t think a song or a joke doesn’t make you guilty of what you sing/joke about. But Palin obviously does, or pretends she does, so she should at least be consistent.

  • Kristy Patullo

    Amen. Just another way for the Govt. to control the American people.

    • redraider93

      Gun control works?? Seriously? Because criminals obey the law so well? Yeah, let’s see how well it works in NYC and Chicago…

      You are a special kind of stupid, aren’t ya?

    • IPreferTeaOverKoolAid

      Look at how well gun control is working in Chicago and Detroit. To name a couple. You really are a special kind of stupid…

      • pwrserge

        We’re all anxious to hear why Chicago was responsible for 95% of homicides in IL despite having 20% of the population…

        • pwrserge

          Mostly in urban hellholes controlled by democrats. Still waiting on an explanation for Chicago.

    • pwrserge

      Other countries like Mexico? Name one other first world country with our rate of gang activity and illegal drug sales.

    • Cameraman

      Oh You Mean Sandy Hoax?

      • Cameraman

        No You Don”T !!!!

  • Richard Smit

    why are Palin haters even on this blog if they hate the Palins so much?

  • Learjet

    My freedoms are being infringed upon! How dare I have to register my assault weapon just like I do my fishing boat and my car! So, UNFAIR!

    • redraider93

      Cars and fishing boats aren’t covered in the constitution

    • pwrserge

      I am under no obligation to register a car I drive on private property or a boat I operate on a private lake.

      • pwrserge

        If I own enough land to have my own racetrack and lake… Wow…

    • Keith

      Not Unfair, Illegal as it’s Unconstitutional!

    • Michelle Erb

      Or, how dare they allow me to keep an assault weapon which is now illegal! I do not want to take the state’s generous offer to let me grandfather in a weapon that even Ronald Reagan said should be illegal. I choose not to register it and face arrest. It is not good enough for me that I could literally own a ton of weapons and not register them as long as they meet the current law. I want to own an illegal weapon and not show any proof that I had it before the law changed!

  • Richard Smit

    THat is not true! the Palins do have jobs! you dont know anything about the Palin Family! and Sarah is a wonderful mom for trig!

    • hipEmom

      LOZ, none of them have jobs, not even the parents. They’re just typical republican grifters.

      • pwrserge

        Yes… I’m sure that author and Governor are not considered jobs.

        • hipEmom

          Ex-governor is not a job but ghostwriter is. Sarah is neither a governor nor author.

          • pwrserge

            By that standard, no celebrity is employed.

  • Richard Smit

    Bristol is a great mom and dancer!

    • Michelle Erb

      Oh Richard. I could understand your delusion about everything else. But a great dancer?! It might be time to get those meds checked.

    • hipEmom

      Yeah, she’s a great mom who leaves her kid for months at a time.

      • pwrserge

        So every mother in the military who gets deployed is a horrible parent?

        • pwrserge

          No… It’s exactly the same thing. Same act.

          • pwrserge

            It’s going away from home to earn money. The act is the same, if not the context.

        • hipEmom

          No, Bristol is a horrible parent because she’s a Palin. I mean, look at her parents’ track record. Yikes!

          • pwrserge

            Yes… a multimillionaire governor… How horrible.

  • redraider93

    And I’m all for every criminal registering and turning in their weapons. But this will not affect a single criminal, only law-abiding citizens.

    Are you so ready to give up your other constitutional rights as easily? How about permits for the 1st amendment too?

    You probably think voter ID requirements are too stringent, I bet….

  • Adam Cornish

    So, you advocate that American citizens break the law?

    • pwrserge

      Malum lex est null lex

      Breaking an unjust law is not crime.

      • hipEmom

        So, all of the gays should get married then?

        • pwrserge

          Please show me where being gay is a protected right in the CotUS.

          • hipEmom

            Equal protection clause. Duh

          • pwrserge

            Two men are not equal to a man and a woman… Duh.

          • hipEmom

            You have a hard time with constitutional law, don’t you? LOL I guess it doesn’t work in Google translate like Latin does.

          • pwrserge

            When two men can get pregnant, let me know. They will never be equal to a straight couple, biologically or legally.

          • hipEmom

            When two 80 years olds can get pregnant, let me know.

          • pwrserge

            They were able to at one point. Two men never can.

        • redrum01

          yes

        • CableNewsGuy

          http://news.yahoo.com/uganda-newspaper-names-200-39-homos-39-anti-000139038.html;_ylt=AwrSyCOHxwxT.ywAxevQtDMD
          I’ll pay your travel expenses so you can go “fight the good fight”, when you return maybe your opinion will carry a little more weight.

          • hipEmom

            Why would I do that when we are still fighting the fight here?

          • pwrserge

            Obviously because you are too much of a pathetic craven coward to “fight” people who might actually fight back.

    • Steven Schartel

      Yes, when the law violates the constitution, yes, HELL YES

    • Ronald G Miner Jr

      The “law” is illegal.

    • HammerNH

      The “law” is a clear violation of the CT Constitution Article 1, section 15:

      SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

      AND of course the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

    • j011254

      Do you hold the same philosophy when it comes to a Martin Luther King, Jr.?

    • David

      yes yes yes a few hundred years ago some americans broke the law and started the USA

  • pwrserge

    Please let me know how registering Lanza’s gun would have done a damn thing to stop him. Last time I checked, there is no law that can stop the “shoot your mother in the face” loophole. Sandy Hook has no relevance to this as evil men will do evil things. Pretending that a big sign or a law can even slow them down is a joke.

  • Nick Belcher

    Thank you Bristol. We need more people to come out in support of the CT patriots.

  • Ronald G Miner Jr

    There are stories floating around today the CT is sending letters to gun owners giving them one more chance to register…If they know where to send these letters, why do gun owners need to register their guns?? The letters don’t say what the penalty is for not complying but it’s being speculated that the CTSP and other police agencies are preparing for door to door confiscation.

    • hipEmom

      “it is being speculated”… in other words, we’ve donned our foil caps

      • j011254

        Why else would they want registration in the first place? There is no effect on the criminals who are unregulated by the State. Why not utilize our legislative energies to prevent criminals from obtaining illegal guns? As opposed to going after law abiding citizens.

      • Cameraman

        Is this your Leader?

  • JuVen Luis

    What is wrong with registering Guns? It would be a great way to track weapons don’t you think? Anyway When you get a CHL you are registered in the system. In Texas when you buy a Gun you have to through a intensive background check. Not anybody can buy a Gun in Texas…

    • Keith

      The second you register your guns that were purchased before Communism, they are on the list for confiscation. That’s just the way it is. It’s world history. Every Commie dictator’s last thing to do before seizing power and killing millions of his opponents was to disarm the public. Do a little research before you post anything this stupid. This is an issue not up for debate. If the Government chooses to start kicking down doors of honest people, the second bloody revolution will commence.

      • rjudge

        Cars have to be registered.

        You and your stupid “Commie” talk.

        “Do a little research,” blah, blah, blah. Why do you use glen the insane beck talking points?

        • pwrserge

          Actually cars do not have to be registered. I have a track car with no license plate, serial numbers, or registration. Perfectly legal.

          • rjudge

            I don’t know about your particular situation and whether or not it is legal, but most cars that go on the street do have to be registered.

          • pwrserge

            My guns are not on the street. They are either in my safe or being transported to a private range. The parallel is perfect. You may be able to get me to register my carry weapon under that parallel, but that’s it. I would agree to that if concealed carry had the same restrictions as a drivers license.

          • rjudge

            No, it is not a “perfect” parallel.

            In the last few months, there have been stories on the local news about how in counties just south of where I live, there is a new crime trend. Criminals are breaking into homes of people who legally own guns and stealing nothing but the guns.
            And, to make things worse, I live in Missouri which is trying to pass illegal laws which would fine and perhaps jail law enforcement personnel if they try to enforce federal gun laws. A Democrat introduced an amendment to that bill which would require that if a firearm is stolen, the owner would have to report the theft in 72 hours. Republicans initially accepted that common sense amendment, but when the NRA found out about it, they complained, and Republicans stripped out that amendment last week.

            Don’t you think some sort of registration and that requirement I mentioned make sense, especially in the case if guns are stolen? Apparently, republicans in this very red state of Missouri initially thought it did, until the extremist NRA organization found out about it.

            Ridiculous.

          • pwrserge

            So again… If I am not required to register my car, why should I be required to register my guns?

          • rjudge

            It makes sense to register your guns; it does not make sense not to register them because the reason you don’t want to register them is because of some paranoia you apparently have about someone coming to take your guns away. This extreme paranoia by the right about Obama being a commie, wanting to take your guns away, etc. is absurd. How in the heck would Obama or anyone for that matter even mobilize to go out and take away your precious guns? Heck, they can’t mobilize to ship back some 10 million undocumented immigrants. How are they going to mobilize to confiscate some 300 million +- guns? They are far more easy to hide, and, where are they going to put all of the people if they refuse to give up their guns? Are they going to put them into “camps,” like beck the insane claimed some years ago?

          • Cameraman

            The First part of your Response is Pure Bull Shyte, the Second Half is Reality!!!

        • j011254

          Cars are registered for the tax effect. It has nothing to do with making them safe for driving or preventing unlicensed drivers from actually driving them.

          • rjudge

            That doesn’t make any difference. They are still registered, so there is a database. Many gun owners are apparently too paranoid because they think that “commies” will come to take their guns if such a database exists.

            I fear paranoid gun nuts because they shoot and kill people, just like Michael Dunn in Florida, a man who had absolutely no need to shoot into that car of teenagers, simply because he very mistakenly thought they had a gun.

          • pwrserge

            As I said… They are not registered when they are not used in public. No state requires 100% vehicle registration. Your argument is pointless.

          • rjudge

            Nope. You can make any excuse you want, and that’s all it is, an excuse for your paranoia.

          • Cameraman

            How Many times have Cops Thought they had a Gun ?

            Cell Phone No! X-Box Controller No ! Plastic Rifle ?

            Get Real MR Educated !!!

            Semper Fi

          • rjudge

            Huh? You’re quite nonsensical, cameraman.

            If I understand your first question, are you implying that because cops make mistakes and shoot people mistakenly that this guy Michael Dunn has the right to do so as well? As far as I know, Dunn was not a cop. Cops have to be trained. Yes, cops make mistakes and sometimes shoot people they mistakenly thought had a gun, and some cops have been successfully prosecuted for doing so. But, they are cops who go through rigorous training.

            I’d also like to point out that Dunn shot at that van as it sped away from his shooting. Now, why would he do that? That’s not self defense at all.

            That’s one problem with gun nuts. They think they can go around, taking the law into their own hands. The more guns out there; the more pro gun culture out there; the more there will be shootings by paranoid gun nuts of innocent people.

            Get real, cameraman. Most people, including myself, are not saying to take away all of your guns. We’re saying make it tougher to get guns. Make background checks universal and more strict. Get tougher on gun crimes. Yes, we need to enforce existing laws, but that does not preclude and should not preclude tougher laws from being enacted. And, we should do things that do make it easier to track weapons to their owners if those weapons are used in crimes. Guns are stolen from people who claim to be responsible and law-abiding citizens.

          • Cameraman

            You People Slay me. you automatically think I supported this Idiot for Using Deadly Force against a bunch of Mouthy Teens, NOT so, He was a COWARD and deserves his Punishment, but here again its not ALL Gun Owners That are this Stupid, as well as Cops Making bad Calls,I was trained By the Marines, and Comes with That Judgment, All Guns laws do is Restrict the Right of Lawful People, those that are called Criminals, will never follow the Law. That’s why they are CRIMINALS!!! Laws will Not stop Criminals from stealing Guns, or Causing them to Not Use them in a Lawful Manner,Registration will not Prevent Crime, it will enable a Evil Government a Way to Confiscate Weapons from Legal Owners…NOMI CTMF

            Semper Fi

          • rjudge

            You people slay me as well.

            Before you made your statement above, I had no idea how you thought, and I didn’t even say you thought a particular way. I was giving an example of how the extreme pro-gun culture in this country is going the wrong way. While you don’t support that idiot, that idiot supports himself, and there are a number of other idiots like him who support such things, and that support is buoyed by extreme “stand your ground” laWs.

            And, your argument claiming that “laws will Not stop Criminals from stealing Guns, or Causing them to Not Use them in a Lawful Manner…..” blah, blah, blah, is misguided logic. With this type of logic, then we should have absolutely no laws on the book. People who kill other people by any means, guns, knives, strangulation, etc. will still kill, even if there are laws against murder.

            Semper ubi sub ubi!

          • Cameraman

            Well Genius, they have Made MURDERING some One a Law , Has That Stopped Anybody?

          • rjudge

            Isn’t that what I just said, Genius? Jeez. You basically have said that there shouldn’t be laws for gun control because gun control laws don’t stop criminals from getting guns and using them.

            So, with that logic, you should also believe that there should be no laws against anything, including murder.

            Don’t you understand? Your logic is flawed about gun control laws, and if you really believe that, then you yourself should also believe there should be no laws against murder because murderers are going to kill, regardless of laws. I don’t believe there should not be any laws against murder, but, with your logic, one might think you shouldn’t be any.

        • Ronald G Miner Jr

          Stop showing your ignorance target

          • rjudge

            I guess I am ignorant. What is an “ignorance target,” moron?

            I tell ya. fans of glen beck are so ignorant. beck is a charlatan who is making millions off of the fools who watch and believe in him. Remember when he said that he was just a “rodeo clown?” Did you ever see that YouTube video of him having Vicks Vapor Rub put under his eyes, in order to make him “cry?” This guy is no patriot. He’s a charlatan who wants to make huge amounts of money off of those who go around saying “do your research” and “Obama is a nazi” or “Obama is a commie.” beck is a demagogue, appealing to people’s base and worst instincts of hatred and fear. beck is an extreme nationalist, “USA, USA, USA.” The nazis came about because of extreme nationalism and hatred. Demagogues, like hitler, are very, very dangerous people.

          • Ronald G Miner Jr

            “You’re showing your ignorance, target.”..as in YOU ARE THE TARGET…Because when the shit hits the fan, all the sycophantic Obama supporters might as well paint big red dots on their shirts…THAT’S WHAT THAT MEANS..

          • rjudge

            Oh, I see. Your all caps make it perfectly clear, now.

            It actually still doesn’t make sense. Do you even know what “sycophantic” means? You sound pretty ignorant yourself saying such things, so I’d be surprised if you know what that word means. You probably heard it from another right wing nut.

            I am not ignorant, ronnie boy. I am well educated, from grade school, through a Jesuit education in high school, and through a very good university that I paid for myself (or got scholarships or low interest loans, which I paid back with interest). The Jesuits in particular teach one how to utilize critical thinking. They even had us read books by well known atheists such as Nietzsche and Jean Paul Sartre, to make us think about whether or not there really is a God.

            I have had a long and good paying career in small, startup companies as well as very large international companies, so I have seen and learned many things about the business world. I have lived and worked in Europe for a number of years, so I have seen different perspectives on life in general.

            No, sir, ronnie junior. I am not ignorant at all. It is the sycophants and lapdogs who listen to the likes of glen the insane beck who are ignorant.

      • JuVen Luis

        I really do not think my comment was stupid. Yes I agree on research Keith…

      • rjudge

        I just really fail to see why pro gun nuts are really against any little thing, like registration. I saw an HBO special last night where they took a 13 year old kid into convenience type stores. They had him try to buy alcohol; they had him try to purchase porn magazines; they hd him try to buy cigarettes. None of the store clerks would allow him to buy such things because he was underaged.

        Then, they took him to a gun show, and he paid, in cash, for some sort of gun. There were no questions asked, no background check run. This is ridiculous.

        • Keith

          Keep drinking the Cool Aid. I suggest you do a little reading on world history. And yes, Beck is correct, do your own research or your not worth debating.

          • rjudge

            I don’t drink Kool Aid (it is a “K”, not a “C”).

            I have read a lot about world history. I also know that socialism in and of itself is not evil. I know that Obama is not a Commie.

            I lived in Europe for 4 years. Most of Europe is socialist. They have strict gun control laws. Their gun murder rate is quite a bit less than ours. We have one of the highest gun murder rates in the world, out of industrialized countries. Out of industrialized countries, we have one of the highest gun suicide rates in the world, and we also have one of the highest accidental gun killing rates in the world.

            You should read with an open mind about the facts that bear this out.

            No, I am not saying we should take away everybody’s gun. I feel strongly, though, that there should be things like stronger background checks. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, but some, like the NRA and other gun nuts, think it takes away their “freedums.”

            beck is a hate mongering clown. He is a charlatan. And fools actually listen to what that POS says. It is amazing.

          • pwrserge

            I would agree with that if you agree that we should be allowed to own any gun we want without going on a government list.

          • rjudge

            Sounds kind of stupid to me. Why should there be one for the other? You’re getting a much better deal (in your mind) if you can own any gun you want (want to own some nuclear devices, too?) and if you own any gun without having to register it.

          • Keith

            Democrats = Socialists = Communists.
            It’s all the same people. You can change the name but it’s still Communism and it’s 100% evil. Ignore the facts at your own peril.

          • rjudge

            Oh, you’re so cute.

            Republicans = repukes = fascists = nazis

          • pwrserge

            Funny how Republicans want to take over, quit stealing your money and leave you alone.

          • rjudge

            Yeah, they really want to leave us alone with their draconian laws requiring invasive ultrasounds for women who want to have an abortion; they really want to steal our money by allowing wealthy people to have offshore tax havens but want to cut food stamps that do help many, many very needy people; they really want to steal our money when they give oil companies huge subsidies; they really want to leave us along when idiot republicans in Arizona pass a law to discriminate against gay people; they really want to leave us alone when I read that a republican lobbyist wants Congress to pass a law that would outlaw gays in the NFL.

            Funny how republicans are against more government intervention, unless it is something that benefits them.

          • Keith

            Errr, The NAZIS were the National Socialist Party.
            I rest my case.

          • rjudge

            No, you just show your complete ignorance. The nazis were “socialist” in name only.

            Do your research. Any reputable historian will tell you that the nazis were on the right. They were more like fascists. Nazis, hitler in particular, hated communists. He really did. Do your research.

            I will also point out that the nazis were extreme nationalists…..the Germans were the “master race.” Everything German was good (except Jews). To people like beck, everything USA is good. beck and others like him really are extreme nationalists, just like the nazis were.

          • Fishingnut

            Nice but you are wasting your time with these clowns

          • rjudge

            They are clowns, aren’t they? And, yes, I know I am wasting my time. They will never change. They are too set in their old, stodgy mindset.

          • Cameraman

            I think This Fits You!!!

          • rjudge

            Ha, ha, ha! You are so funny!

            You don’t know me. I do not worship Obama. I never have. I have problems with things he has done and with things he has not done, but I am not paranoid or extreme as many here are.

            Go away, sarah palin or glen beck or whatever whackjob you really are. Many of you cannot think for yourselves, anyway. You simply parrot the incredible nonsense that these two nimrods spew, and you know that they are doing this to take advantage of your ignorance and make themselves very rich.

          • benched42

            So, do you attribute the lower rates of murder, suicide and accidental killings to our laws or how about attribute it to the REQUIRED military service in the European countries of Austria, Belarus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Norway, Switzerland and Ukraine. With everyone getting proper training it would definitely reduce the incidents you describe.

          • rjudge

            I attribute it to many things, including an overabundance of weapons. Some people who like guns just go way overboard, people like nugent.

            I attribute it to the fact that many countries in Europe do not allow gun ownership or highly restrict it.

            Yes, I also admit that many of the gun crimes are committed with illegally possessed guns, but you often hear about legal guns killing people. Certainly, many of the guns used in these horrific school shootings have been legal. But why make it so easy for people to get them? I still ask the question about why Adam Lanza brought only his mother’s high capacity magazines to that school? He left the lower capacity versions at home. He did that to cause maximum damage. I still maintain that if he did not have access to higher capacity magazines, he possibly might not have killed so many kids and adults. His mother, while sounding a bit crazy herself, did sound like a law abiding citizen, and I still maintain that if there was a law prohibiting the use of higher capacity magazines, maybe, just maybe, a few less kids would have died.

            I fully realize we will never get rid of guns in this country. But it is just sad that gun nuts like those in the NRA push their agenda so strongly and have so much influence in politics. I related a story elsewhere on this thread. Last year, the Missouri state legislature tried to pass a law which would criminalize law enforcement officials if they tried to enforce federal gun laws. That bill was passed by both houses, but the governor vetoed it. Republicans tried to overturn the veto, but they lost by one vote.

            This year, they are trying to pass a very similar bill. Democrats put an amendment in that bill which would require that firearms owners notify law enforcement within 72 hours if their firearms were stolen. Republicans initially agreed to that. It makes sense, and I don’t see anything wrong with it. But, when the NRA found out about it, they protested, and, just last week, republicans stripped out that amendment. It is just plain ridiculous.

          • benched42

            OK, so you never heard of Switzerland? They issue a firearm to each person who enters their military (essentially everyone) and that person is allowed to keep that firearm for life if they choose to do so.

            Yes, the guns used in the horrific school shootings were legal. Even if they changed the laws to what that looney Feinstein wants, they can legally obtain the same types of firearms and go off like they did. More laws do not equate to a safer country. Plus, the law she is pushing is all about cosmetics and not anything about the true nature of the firearm.

            Federal gun laws should ALWAYS be restricted by the Second Amendment. “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.” The last four words, “shall not be infringed” are what people who want restrictions to be placed need to note. Any other federal law would infringe on the Second Amendment.

          • rjudge

            I have been to Switzerland several times. Have you ever even been out of the country to broaden your mind?

            You’re the 2nd person in the past few days I have seen refer to Switzerland. I saw someone else reference Switzerland as the reason not to have the minimum wage in this country because they don’t have one (they actually do, but it’s in a different form)……, but if you’re so hopped up on using Switzerland as an example, then why don’t you use Switzerland as an example to boost the cast for universal healthcare? Like all European countries, Switzerland provides that in some form, and it has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. And, note that I am saying that all European countries have some form of “socialist,” universal healthcare.

            And you choose to use Switzerland as the sole example for giving people guns? Something is not right with your argument.

          • rjudge

            Yep. The extreme and dangerous gun culture that exists here does not exist in Switzerland. When you hear the phrase “responsible gun owners” in this country, that is not always true. But I bet money it is very much true in Switzerland.

          • benched42

            Yes, I have been out of the country on several occasions, for work and for vacation. Other than the weather I haven’t seen anything that would entice me to stay out of the US.

            Nice argument, there. I use Switzerland as an example of a country that issues guns to essentially all of its citizens and you jump to health care. Can you say “redirect”? Sure, I knew you could.

            I initially chose Switzerland as it is a country in Europe. Using Europe as an example in this thread is something YOU brought up. I’m continuing with YOUR example. “Something is not right with your argument”? I’d say something is not right with YOUR argument if you can’t stay focused.

          • rjudge

            No, it is not “redirect.” First of all, I said “most” European countries do not allow their citizens to own guns. So, Switzerland is one that does.

            Further, it is only but one, and from other things you have said, you’re probably a person who is totally against universal healthcare. So, if you give one example of one country that allows its citizens to own guns, (just one), you would probably not accept my argument that most if not all of Europe has universal healthcare, and that includes more than just Switzerland. I am pointing out the fact that you are being highly selective in your use of Switzerland to say that arming citizens is a not a bad thing; but you probably refuse to use Switzerland or the entirety of Europe to demonstrate that universal healthcare is a good thing.

            Now, if you had given an example of the entirety of Europe (or, let’s say even 50% of Europe) giving guns to their own citizens, you probably would have a point.

            Further, someone else gave you a counter example of why your example of Switzerland does not apply here in this country.

            No, you are not continuing with my argument. You are very wrong.

          • Katy

            How is socialism good? Do you even know what socialism is? Our country was founded for the purpose of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our government was meant to serve the citizens, not rule them. Here is a history lesson for you in one quote.

            “The best way to take control over a people and control them
            utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights
            by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the
            people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past
            the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”


            Adolf Hitler,

            Mein Kampf

          • rjudge

            You’re so full of it, Katy. Do you even know what socialism is? Ever heard of social security? What is Medicare and Medicaid?

            I lived in Europe for 4 years,in The Netherlands, a socialist country. I had absolutely no loss of freedoms. In fact, I believe I had more freedoms than we do here in that country. At the time I lived and worked there, one could buy and smoke marijuana legally. One could go see a prostitute all over the place legally. I did not partake in either of these two things, but those were freedoms they have which most of this country does not have.

            I saw massive protests in The Netherlands without the government or police stopping people. I saw a huge march in Amsterdam one day. It was a march of Kurds who were protesting the arrest of their leader Abdullah Ocalan in Turkey. No one was arrested or prevented from protesting.

            Just what “freedums” do you think Europe does not have? Most of Europe has socialist governments.

            Canada is a socialist country. Do you hear anything comparing Canada to nazi Germany?

            When I lived in The Netherlands, I had to see a doctor twice. My admin made an appointment for me each time, depending upon my ailment. The government did not tell me what doctor I had to see. I got in the same exact day that my admin made the appointments. I got treated quickly and got prescription meds, one of which you cannot even buy in this country. They worked.

            I knew a Dutch woman with diabetes. She wound up in the hospital twice because she did not take care of herself. She was treated and released after several days. Her only complaint about the Dutch healthcare network is that she couldn’t get a private bed. Heck, you can’t get one here without paying an arm and a leg for it.

            I knew another Dutch lady, an elderly woman, who had a small stroke. She got right into the hospital and was released after a short while. There was no “death panel” that said she shouldn’t be treated because she was an older person.

            Many people like you call Obama a communist, and they also call him a nazi. Did you know that Adolph Hitler hated communists? Did you know that he preached about the evils of the “Marxist Jews?”

            Did you know that the nazis were not socialists at all? They were socialists in name only. They were extreme nationalists, much like the tea party is today…..back then, everything German was good….Germans were the master race; now, the tea party shouts “USA, USA, USA”…..”founding fathers did this; founding fathers did that.” Everything is USA! How nationalistic can one get?

            Barack Obama is not Adolph Hitler, and you’re an extreme hater is you think he is anywhere near him. You’re just ignorant.

            You don’t know what you are talking about, Katy.

          • Fishingnut

            Beck has never been right about anything

        • pwrserge

          Oh that’s complete BS. What that was was a felony. No FFL is allowed to sell guns without a background check.

          • rjudge

            I have seen a number of things like this the last few years. It may be a felony, but seems to me that if there were more strict laws about background checks, people would be more aware of these types of situations. I have to ask, how did such a seller even get into a gun show to sell his firearms? Seems to me that the people who put on gun shows have the responsibility to check on those who sell guns.

          • pwrserge

            So the solution to preventing people from committing federal felonies is more laws? Did you chug lead paint as a kid? They are already breaking the law. One more is not going to matter.

          • rjudge

            I have seen other cases, caught on video, where an individual seller sold a gun to an adult with absolutely no background check, and from every thing I have seen, that is perfectly legal.

            Stricter background checks will make a difference, and it will enforce the idea that one should not sell guns to minors. How in the heck did this guy even get a stand at that gun show to sell to anyone, if he is one who would sell a gun to a minor with absolutely no check?

            You’re a thug with your comments about lead paint.

          • pwrserge

            So now it’s a gun show and not a store? Ok… That is still illegal as you cannot sell a gun without checking the age and state of residence of the purchaser. Even at a gun show.

          • rjudge

            I type very quickly, and I made a mistake when I first typed that. There was no intent on my part to deceive. Absolutely none.

            Even at a gun show, it does seem to me that the people who run said gun show should have the responsibility to ensure that the people who sell there sell guns legally and responsibility.

        • FybrOptx

          What was the name of the show?

          • rjudge

            I believe it was actually a segment from an upcoming HBO show. I don’t remember the name of the show, but it might have been Vice.

          • pwrserge

            So you base your interpretation of gun laws from a police drama show… Wow…

          • rjudge

            I honestly do not know what the show was. I said I think it was a preview of an upcoming Vice show. That is not a police drama show at all.

            And, I don’t base my interpretation of gun laws on any show. I use such video segments as examples. I said nothing about interpreting gun laws.

            Now, you are getting silly with stupid replies.

    • pwrserge

      The fact that the way I exercise my rights is none of the government’s business. There is zero evidence that gun registration has any law enforcement benefit.

      • hipEmom

        There is zero evidence that we need voter ID but that hasn’t stopped The Stupid Party from passing laws in favor.

        • pwrserge

          Funny how voter fraud has been proven in the 2012 election. Also, the right to vote requires you to prove yourself eligible. The right to keep and bear arms has no eligibility requirements.

          • hipEmom

            When? Where? LOL! Um, okay. Are you done with your Fox pablum?

          • pwrserge
          • hipEmom

            explain how voter ID laws would have prevented her from submitting fraudulent ABSENTEE ballots, professor!

          • FybrOptx

            Still hiding your head in the sand and ignoring pwrserge’s response?

          • pwrserge

            Simple. Absentee ballots would not be legal. If you can’t be bothered to show up, your opinion is irrelevant.

          • hipEmom

            Um, that would mean disenfranchisement to millions. Try again.

          • pwrserge

            I don’t care. If you can’t prove you are who you claim you are at the time our ballot is cast, that’s not my problem.

          • hipEmom

            Whelp. There it is in a tidy republinutshell. Cons don’t care about the Constitution. period.

          • pwrserge

            Please show me where the Constitution waves basic voting requirements if it’s not convenient? Can’t prove you have the right to vote? No vote for you.

          • hipEmom

            Yeah, those idiot soldiers have no say in who their boss is!

          • pwrserge

            Set up a polling station on base or at the FOB and extend voting periods to a week. Problem solved.

          • hipEmom

            Yeah, that’s bound to work! You should go and work for the GOP! You are stupid enough.

          • pwrserge

            I guarantee I am am better educated than any member of your family and make more money. Sit down and shut up prole, your betters are talking.

          • hipEmom

            Really? You guarantee that your high school education earns more money than my MBA and my husband’s PhD combined? LOL!

            *pro tip*, when you pay more in taxes than most people make in a year, we can talk about your success. And, yes, I will have fries with that!

          • FybrOptx

            With the exception of deployed military and physically disabled.

          • pwrserge

            Military would vote at their base of operations and have their votes counted there. Simple. Physically disabled would be brought to a central polling location.

        • FybrOptx

          Apparently “Voter ID laws suppressing votes” is a myth Dems cling to…

          http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/opinion/preston-texas-id-laws/

          • hipEmom

            First .line in this opinion piece:

            “Editor’s note: Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media”

            LOL

          • FybrOptx

            If that is as far as you got then you obviously want to keep your head firmly stuck in the sand instead of facing facts.

          • hipEmom

            That’s as far as I needed to get. LOL

          • FybrOptx

            Then you purposely ignored the point about INCREASED voter turnout from 2011 to 2013, especially with minorities. Your “voter ID suppresses turnout” talking point holds no water.

          • hipEmom

            I didn’t make that point but thanks for trying to make sense!

      • JuVen Luis

        Yah I do have to do some research. Evidently we have to do something about children dying in our schools…

        • j011254

          Here’s a suggestion, stop making them targets for the mentally ill by declaring them “Gun Free” zones. Allow some responsible, law abiding citizen to carry a firearm to help defend our children.

        • pwrserge

          How about raising your liberal drugged up monsters properly? Funny how we never had school shootings in the 50s.

          • hipEmom

            At least we send our kids to school, not hand them a Babble and call it homeschooling.

          • benched42

            What have you got against home schooling? I know several kids in my town that were home schooled. All have since graduated from college (with advanced degrees in science and mathematics) and all hold down great jobs. One is an EE who works for Intel. Another graduated from high school (yes, she did go for some things like orchestra, choir and cheerleading) and the next weekend graduated from the local community college. She’s now got her MBA.

            You’ve now posted at least twice against home schooling. What, did you fail miserably at public school? Or are you an NEA member who thinks no one but teachers can actually teach?

          • rjudge

            Actually, there were school shootings in the 1950s. I did my quick research. Wikipedia has a whole list of school shootings throughout time. And, while I can’t say for certain, a quick look through that list shows that most of the shootings in the 1950s were of single victims, whereas as time went on, there were more multiple shooting victims. I wonder if that has anything to do with the types of weapons made available to people? I wonder if that has anything to do with the number of people who have guns, now?

            I agree 100% that more needs to be done about the mentally ill. But, Europe and other places also have mentally ill people, and other parts of the world also have violent video games.

          • pwrserge

            In the 50s I could own a far more effective weapon than an AR15. In fact, in 1960 I could buy a full auto M14 with minimal paperwork and have it mailed to my door.

          • Fishingnut

            Full autos were made illegal in the 30’s. BTW, M14’s are semi automatics

          • pwrserge

            1. Actually Full Autos are still legal. It just needs to be made before 1986 and you need to pay a $200 Tax. (Which makes them prohibitively expensive.)

            2. M14s were most certainly select fire. They even had a special stock to help the shooter control it under automatic fire.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle

          • rjudge

            Also include Missouri, a very red state which is trying to pass extreme, draconian pro-gun laws. The state legislature, mainly Republicans, wants to pass a bill that would criminalize law enforcement officials who try to enforce federal gun laws. They passed this bill last year, but the governor vetoed it. Then republicans tried to override that veto, but that failed by just one vote. Now, they are trying to introduce another, very similar bill. It’s just ridiculous.

          • Cameraman

            There Is a Reason!

          • pwrserge

            Yup… And note that those same red states have absurdly small homicide rates outside of Demoturd controlled urban ghettos. Funny that.

            Example. Chicago, the only reason IL is a blue state, 20% of the state population, 95% of the state’s homicides. Gun control “success” story.

        • Tigre57

          In zones posted as gun free so the crminals who dont follow gun laws know exactly where to go. Duh.

          • rjudge

            That’s a ridiculous statement. I don’t think the area where Gabby Giffords was shot was a gun free zone. It was a public place in a red state, Arizona. Further, there is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that these criminals (many of whom are mentally ill) sought out a gun free location to commit murder. Do you really think that people like Adam Lanza, a very mentally disturbed individual, sought out that school because it was a “gun free zone?” Common sense tells me that he chose it because it would cause maximum casualties and horror simply because of the school children. There is also evidence that in a number of these school shootings, the shooter had personal ties to that school.

            I also want to point out that there were armed guards at Columbine. That did not stop the killers.

          • pwrserge

            There was one police officer who cowered like a craven coward and should have been shot for cowardice in the face of the enemy. Try again.

          • rjudge

            Seems to me that if it was a police office, and if he truly “cowered like a craven coward,” then there likely are other police officers who might do the same.

            And, if you believe he should have been shot, then I have no respect for you.

        • commonsense4sure

          Maybe you should join Piers Morgan! You seem to be about as smart as he is!

        • Bud Chiller

          Children died in our schools (aka. gun free zones) because there was no armed good guy to stop the armed bad guy.
          I figured I’d put it in terms you might understand.

        • Richard Willey

          If it wasn’t for the guns of the U.S. citizens your child might not have even been born..Your parents probably would have been yellow and willing to led to a slaughter house or castrated just for the fun of it by some dictator..

    • Tigre57

      Go read some history numbnutz.

  • pwrserge

    That would be discriminating against disabilities. Two men are not disabled.

    • hipEmom

      Being too old to have kids is not a disability. Having a hysterectomy is not a disability.

      • pwrserge

        Actually, age is another protected class and a hysterectomy is definitely a disability as it affects a “major life function” aka procreation.

  • pwrserge

    Hey dumbass. I have forgotten more about Constitutional Law than you and Obama ever knew.

    • hipEmom

      Sure, okay, professor. Maybe you can explain to everyone then why a woman who has had a hysterectomy would be turned down for disability/SSI??

      • pwrserge

        You forget that disability condensation and a protected condition are different things. For example, discriminating against a woman because of her hysterectomy would be illegal as it qualifies for discrimination protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act. As I said earlier, the criteria is a condition that adversely affects one or more major life functions. Not all of them qualify you for disability under Social Security, but all of them provide discrimination protection. Suck it.

        • hipEmom

          Condensation? LOL

          So, guys with no/low sperm count are also disabled?

          You are a hoot!

          • pwrserge

            Under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Possibly. Yes.

          • hipEmom

            You win Palin for a Day!!!!!!!

            How are you people able to remember to breathe? So effing stupid! Gah!

          • pwrserge

            Go read the Americans with Disabilities Act then sit down and shut up.

          • hipEmom

            Go get a vasectomy and claim you are disabled.
            *The tool in the mirror is you.

          • pwrserge

            So you support discrimination against men with vasectomies in violation of federal law?

  • Keith

    Disregard the words of a turd. They don’t realize how close to armed rebellion we are. Remember, we have the guns.

    • hipEmom

      We have guns too, idiot.

  • idesign2

    F off troll.

    • http://yahoo.com john norton

      ..**__** … !!!-)

  • Tigre57

    No, but you just opened your mouth and proved how ignorant you are

    • hipEmom

      So… just the women? As I suspected.

      • idesign2

        Hey moron, your brain is suspect..:)

    • http://yahoo.com john norton

      Speak fer yoreself Drone… !!!

      • idesign2

        Hey John, don’t shoot our own.

  • http://yahoo.com john norton

    The Proof…is in the “Puddin,U betcha… !!!

    • http://yahoo.com john norton

      …!!!-)

    • Fishingnut

      Good afternoon John

  • Ronald G Miner Jr

    If the shit hits the fan, do you think your savior in DC will help you???? HAHAHAHA

  • vaniir

    Wow, the comments here are pretty funny. It must be nice to not have any life outside of trolling Bristol Palin’s blog…

    • http://yahoo.com john norton

      K-Street,bottom of the barrel,U betcha… !

    • avgjoe

      typical LIEberal pedophiles

  • http://yahoo.com john norton

    Do they pay ya by the mile…? LOL

  • http://yahoo.com john norton

    U-Betcha Guv… ~ !

    • http://yahoo.com john norton

      **__** … !!!-)

  • j011254

    Why are you such a nasty person? Stop calling people names when they disagree with you. Your arguments would carry more weight.

  • Ronald G Miner Jr

    Shut up target

    • hipEmom

      Is that what you say to your wife?

  • idesign2

    The left wants to have it both ways. They claim that it’s racist to show an ID for voter registration, so in that case it must be racist to register a gun..:)

    • FybrOptx

      NAILED IT!

  • pwrserge

    Actually the 2nd amendment does. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Nowhere is the government granted power to keep lists of people with guns.

    • hipEmom

      Registration is not infringement. Just ask the voter ID folks.

      • pwrserge

        Voter ID is not registration it’s proving your eligibility. The right to keep and bear arms has no eligibility requirements. Voting does.

        • hipEmom

          No, it isn’t. You can register to vote on a clipboard at a street fair.

          • pwrserge

            That’s the problem. If you want to vote, you should have to prove that you are eligible to do so and that you are who you claim to be. Every other civilized nation on Earth requires photo ID to vote.

          • hipEmom

            And if you want to own a gun, you should have to prove what gun it is you are trying to own.

            And, no, most other nations do NOT require ID to vote. FFS! Just make it up, why don’t you?

          • pwrserge

            Please show me the part of the Constitution that places any restriction or qualification on gun ownership. I can cite restrictions on voting rather easily. Voting should be more tightly controlled. Clearly.

          • hipEmom

            Show me the part that places restriction on voting, specifically, the part where you have to show ID

          • pwrserge

            Article VI paragraph 3

          • hipEmom

            That doesn’t say I have to show ID. Try again.

          • pwrserge

            Prove that you are eligible without photo ID. I dare you. Try again.

          • hipEmom

            I don’t have to prove I am eligible. It is assumed. Just. Like. GUNS.

          • pwrserge

            Actually, it is not. Nor should it be. Article VI states you must be a citizen to vote. If you want to vote, you must prove that you are a citizen and that you are who you claim you are. Nowhere are guns restricted in any way.

    • 1MiddleRoader

      So, you’re OK with your next door neighbor having a nuclear or chemical weapon?

      • pwrserge

        Refuge in absurdity much? If my neighbor can get his hands on a nuke or on chemical weapons he’s probably so loaded he would have no reason to use them. But let’s compromise… We’ll draw the line at WMDs. Everything else is not restricted in any way. Deal?

        • 1MiddleRoader

          Yes, I was being a bit facetious. However, our little compromise would be unconstitutional, b/c it is an infringement on the right to keep & bear arms. And if the 2nd Amendment was written to protect us from a tyrannical government, then we should be able to get weapons equivalent to those the government has.

          • pwrserge

            So was I. If I have he cash to afford a nuclear weapon. There are far more damaging ways I can use that money. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

          • 1MiddleRoader

            Sorry, I truly did think you were serious about drawing the line at WMD. I assume that you are also OK with criminals, the mentally ill, and even children having the right to keep & bear arms, and that you think background checks of any kind to buy a gun are unconstitutional. I think most reasonable people (and the Supreme and other lower courts) can agree that the 2nd Amendment, just like free speech and other constitutional freedoms, are not absolutes. We just all disagree on where to draw the line. Even the NRA supports some background checks.

          • pwrserge

            I don’t care what the NRA supports.

            Children obviously don’t have the same rights as adults. They don’t enjoy constitutional protections. (This has been established for decades.)

            Criminals and the mentally ill are a non-issue. If they can’t be trusted with guns, they should be behind bars or in a six foot hole in the ground. Obviously neither case will allow them the opportunity to purchase weapons.

          • 1MiddleRoader

            I’ll give you the children point, although it does raise some issues as to what the age when
            But the criminal and mentally issue is valid, b/c both of those are hard to define. Many states allow non-violent ex-felons to buy guns. What about drug arrests from 20 years ago? 10 years ago? Personally, I’m OK with certain types of ex-felons having their rights restored. Again, it’s where you draw the line. But the Constitution has no line.

          • pwrserge

            The line is very simple. It’s drawn at the prison gate. The solution is to quit releasing dangerous felons back into society.

          • 1MiddleRoader

            Agreed. But there are dangerous felons in society.

          • 1MiddleRoader

            Agreed. But there are dangerous felons in society.

          • pwrserge

            Please explain how that justifies raping the rights of everyone who is not a felon.

          • 1MiddleRoader

            I know you won’t agree with a word I write below, but I’ll say my piece and be done with this topic. 1st, I don’t believe that registration conflicts with the 2nd Amendment: it does not say the right to SECRETLY keep & bear arms. Some types registration systems were common in Colonial America (mostly, but not exclusively for militias). Just as the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, it also ruled that it is not unlimited. I realize that many think the last part contradicts the Amendment, and they should continue to pursue judicial challenges to what they see as infringements. In the meantime, people can follow the state laws, or commit civil disobedience and accept the consequences.

          • pwrserge

            I’ll take option number 3. Neither obey nor accept the tyrannical “consequence” of refusing to bow to tyrants. I will fight them in any way I must. By ballot or by bullet, but this tyranny will not be allowed to stand even if I need to fight knee deep in bodies of allies and enemies before it falls. I really hope those scumbags come to their senses, because if they push me and men like me far enough, we will be voting from the rooftops. The Nuremberg defense does not protect you from from people who have decided that your existence is a credible threat against the liberty they swore to protect. MOLON LABE

          • 1MiddleRoader

            know you won’t agree with a word I write below, but I’ll say my piece and be done with this topic. 1st, I don’t believe that registration conflicts with the 2nd Amendment: it does not say the right to SECRETLY keep & bear arms. Some types registration systems were common in Colonial America (mostly, but not exclusively for militias). Just as the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, it also ruled that it is not unlimited. I realize that many think the last part contradicts the Amendment, and they should continue to pursue judicial challenges to what they see as infringements. In the meantime, people can follow the state laws, or commit civil disobedience and accept the consequences.

          • 1MiddleRoader

            I know you won’t agree with a word I write below, but I’ll say my piece and be done with this topic. 1st, I don’t believe that registration conflicts with the 2nd Amendment: it does not say the right to SECRETLY keep & bear arms. Some types registration systems were common in Colonial America (mostly, but not exclusively for militias). Just as the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, it also ruled that it is not unlimited. I realize that many think the last part contradicts the Amendment, and they should continue to pursue judicial challenges to what they see as infringements. In the meantime, people can follow the state laws, or commit civil disobedience and accept the consequences.

          • 1MiddleRoader

            Sorry for the repeat replies. Something is going on with either my computer or disqus.

  • idesign2

    I see I’m a legend in your mind…LMAO

    • Richard Willey

      Typical lib responses…No Brain No Pain…What a waste….

  • beautifulnrich1

    Uttt ohhh, LOL!!!!
    Guess that didn’t work out to well for the Ct. politician’s !!!

  • Peter Toth

    Gun registration was scrapped by the Canadian government for two very simple and glaring reasons. One: It was proven without question to be completely ineffective in reducing or preventing any crime. Two: The cost of this registration was claimed to only amount to 2.5 million over 5 years. The actual cost ended up being over 2 BILLION dollars, and that figure still did not include the costs at the local police level, which were born by those local departments.

    Gun registration is nothing new, it has been introduced many times in the past 100 years. The most noted early registration took place in 1938 in Germany, under the direction of the chancellor of the National Socialist Party of Germany. His name was Adolph Hitler. Soon after the registration took place, the natural second step occurred. They confiscated all privately owned firearms, claiming that it was for safety reasons. But who’s safety were they concerned about? It was evident that the safety they were so concerned about, was the safety of the law enforcement personnel, who were later tasked with rounding up “undesirable” people.

    We all know what happened next.

  • Edward

    Hi and Thank You for the article. I am a Ct Citizen living this madness. There were some who did register the required items, but it is true that many did not. It has been a difficult time for Law Abiding Citizens in our State and continues to be. As I read some of the comments below I am amazed at the level of Childish and Ignorant things people say on the subject. First I must remind people that “it is easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback from your Computer in another State”. Secondly CT has if not the hardest most vetted process to obtain a “Permit to Carry a Pistol or Revolver” then 2nd in the Country. Let me be clear, this registration has NOTHING to do with legal firearms ownership! This is simply a registration of what the State has dubbed in a “Knee Jerk Reaction” as dangerous. Examples are: any magazine that can hold more then 10 rounds, Accessories like a pistol grip on a long rifle and a detachable magazine, a telescopic shoulder stock or extra hand grip on the forward end of the rifle. It is strictly for collecting data on Law Abiding Citizens to be used against us at a later date. This absolutely has Nothing to do with making Anyone Safer! It is shameful and an assault on Not only Our US Constitution, but also our CT Constitution! We are after all called “The Constitution State”. Please be rational. Thanks.

    • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

      Stand firm, we are proud of you! We all may be next, hopefully we all can put a stop to this assault on our rights.

      • Edward

        Thank You.

    • Richard Willey

      What can I do to help? If ever on a jury of your peers ……NOT GUILTY>>>If one person dies while not being able to defend themselves lawsuits should be flying in all directions …That is just for starters!!!!!!!

      • Edward

        Thank You. You can take the Oath or reaffirm your Oath with your local Oath Keepers chapter. That would be a great place to start.

  • David

    Did the “Lame Stream Media” forget to cover this story about Connecticut Gun Owners standing up for their Constitutional Rights ?

    • David

      The Lame Stream Media = ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS.
      Fox News is not part of the LSM.

      • Sarah Nugent

        Correct. Fox is on the cartoon network.

        • avgjoe

          yeah this coming from a moron who watches PMSnbc & voted for ovomit in 2 elections… theres no reasoning wit that level of stupidity

          • Tim

            I don’t think you can make comments about the intelligence of others, given your atrocious grasp of the English language.

          • avgjoe

            ahh so typical of the tolerant left bullying for a spelling mistake & not addressing the issue. Hilter, stalin & mao would be proud of you… BTW they also confiscated guns in the name of safety & the government would protect you too

  • idesign2

    One shot..:)

    After using her dad’s rifle which was damaged in a fall.

    • goldcoast125

      Really, I don’t remember it that way. She even needed some one to operate the bolt to eject the shell and reload another one. Guess I was looking at a different Sarah Palin, good to know there is more then one.

  • Joe Kaminski

    Oh, a lot of people did it, just not even close to a majority. Rest assured there are still a lot of stupid, stupid lemmings in the state of Connecticut. I think it’s time they remove the slogan “The Constitution State” from their license plates.

    • pwrserge

      Less than 15% of rifle owners complied. Even fewer magazine owners.

  • An actual employee

    I beg to differ. We don’t have to register in my state to vote, but for me to purchase a gun, I have to abide by the Brady Act, requiring registration before purchasing. Let’s get folks having to register to vote and show idea for every time they vote, just like I do to purchase a firearm, to keep things fair. I have no problem with the Brady Act, but I do have a problem with me having to go tell anyone what weapons I own so they can keep a database for later use. When is “Big Brother” going to back off and let me control myself and my family. We need less big government not more, and I applaud CT citizens for standing up for what rights we still have!

  • hipEmom

    They don’t call them gun NUTS for nothing!

  • pwrserge

    Please tell me more about your extensive study of conservative dicks. How many did you have to blow to get a representative sample?

  • pwrserge

    Fun fact, you have to prove eligibility to vote. There are no eligibility restrictions to gun rights. That’s right. Voting should be controlled tighter than guns.

    • Marty

      If you legally,,,,,, purchase a gun you must pass at least an instant background check…… So yes you have to prove you are eligible to purchase a firearm legally… So your point is? Should be able to cross the boarder and vote? What an Idiot… Your facts are baseless prove them as I am proving my claim…

      http://weapons.about.com/od/buyingagun/p/Gun-Buying-Guide.htm

      • MIke

        Been to a gun show lately? I’ve been background checked every time. Tell me where you have personal FIRSTHAND knowledge of loopholes at a gun show…

        • Marty

          Not trying to claim it isn’t the case,, know it isn’t.. Go ahead purchase a legal firearm online as you are claiming… Can’t be done without a FFL so either your FFL is pulling something Illegal or you are…

          Yes even used guns go ahead get caught with one not going through an FFL and see what happens to your stupid Arse… It simply cannot be done legally,,, and there is the key legally…

      • Marty

        You obviously have never bought a gun online or at a gun show because yes you do.. Online purchases have to go through an FFL dealer… And at a show you have to either have a purchase permit from the sherrif dept or a ccw permit. Or if the dealer at the show can do an instant it can be done that way…

        But yes you have to prove you are eligible to purchase a firearm….. GET A LIFE quit complaining about something you have no clue about…

      • pwrserge

        Please show me where the constitution allows you to regulate firearms in any way. The way I see it, anyone should be able to buy a gun. Not everyone is allowed to vote. Only citizens.

        • Marty

          Oh boy another troll,,, I agree guns should not be regulated..However your claim that only citizens can vote doesn’t hold water either…Do I need to link you to all the voter fraud from even dead voters,,..And sorry but I don’t believe illegal immigrants should be able to purchase firearms….And legally they cannot so your point is????

          http://www.vrolyk.org/guns/alien-laws.html

          • pwrserge

            Obviously you missed the core of my argument. The problem of voter fraud and the fact that voting is not a right of all US residents requires voter ID. There are zero legitimate restrictions to gun ownership. Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun should not be on the street in the first place.

          • Marty

            There are zero restrictions on ones right to vote either…

            You’re right” I don’t understand your argument,,, Every citizen of the United States has the right to vote once they obtain age requirements.. Unless said rights have been lost due breaking the law…

            Same applies to firearms,, If you break certain laws you cannot purchase a firearm..If you break certain laws you cannot vote…If you cannot pass a background check you cannot purchase a firearm.. If you cannot register to vote,, you cannot vote in most states. North Dakota does not use voter registration..

            Whether or not you need to prove your eligibility is another matter altogether…You need to register to vote yes… You need to pass a background check to purchase firearms..

            Hell you even have to show ID to purchase cigarettes.

            Obviously you have never heard of constitutional amendments…And yes they are legal..

          • pwrserge

            Please show me the amendment that allows background checks. The point is that in order to vote, the Constitution requires you to prove you are a citizen. No such criteria exist within the Constitution for firearms. Thus, asking ID to vote is constitutional asking ID to buy guns is not.

          • Marty

            Not that I agree with background checks but here is a link that explains it…

            http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/about_background_checks

            And yes this was ruled constitutional..

          • pwrserge

            I don’t care what it was ruled. Show me where in the Constitution there are exceptions to “shall not be infringed”

          • Marty

            Dude I agree they shouldn’t be regulated,, what else you want me to say?????:? If you don’t like the FN law fight to change it… Arguing with me over nothing is assnine…

            IF YOU DON”T LIKE THE LAW FIGHT TO CHANGE IT….

            As i said in almost every post,, I agree guns should not be regulated…But you continue on like I’m saying something I have not said…

            The Constitution does not say a lot about a lot of things.
            But like it or not,, the Brady bill is law. And it was ruled constitutional… So that said I will not respond any further..

            http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/brady-bill-signed-into-law

          • pwrserge

            And as I said. You lost me the second you claimed an absurdly tyrannical law has any standing or legitimacy.

          • pwrserge

            On a side note, the basic arguments of that page start with a lie. They claim that machineguns, silencers, short barreled rifles, etc have been banned. Not to mention that pointing to a crazy liberal talking point sheet does not lend you credibility.

  • David

    Looks like a bunch of Left-Wing-Nut Obama Brainwashed Fans are commenting on Bristol’s Blog.

  • Josh Hernandez

    i think that somewhere on the internet were
    the confiscation notices for many conn. firearms owners who did not register weapons… lets see hows this plays out

    • Section 9

      Look up “Irish Democracy”. That’s what’s happening. The Ruling Party (that’s the Democrats) are having the big Middle Finger being hoisted in their direction by the electorate, and they don’t quite know how to handle it.

  • Richard Smit

    Sarah Palin doesnt wear a Water Balloon bra!!

    • Guest

      really?

      • Richard Smit

        her other shirt is more tight.

        • Sarah Nugent

          Lol

    • Guest

      Really?

  • Richard Smit

    You are just jealous of Sarahs beauty!

  • Galileo2

    The Libtards are pushing things too far.

    …and they are doing so to the people who own at least 80% of the privately held guns in this country, too.

    Forget watching Kiev burn on TV. Keep an eye out for Hartford, instead.

  • Exodus2011

    so many were encouraged by the quiet MASS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE conducted by the CT gun-owners …

    late last year, the pic below of some CT gunowners submissively lining up to register their guns as required by their local officials SCARED THE HE!! out of other Americans …. but now we know, they were THE FEW!

    DEO GRATIAS!

    Americans are way more inclined to go with America’s POTUS #1 on this issue ….

  • avgjoe

    this coming from a moron who watches PMSnbc & voted for ovomit in 2 elections… theres no reasoning wit that level of stupidity

  • dave

    If it weren’t for guns we would still be speaking with a British accent …
    Guns are woven into this countries fabric… just saying

  • avgjoe

    yeah this coming from a moronwho gulps ovomit koolade by teh gallon, who watches PMSnbc & voted for ovomit in 2 elections… theres no reasoning wit that level of stupidity

  • Cameraman

    Thank you and your Family for all the Support of these True Patriots, and its going to be a Long haul For the People of Conn, we are with them in Spirit!!

    Semper Fi

    • Section 9

      See “Gandhi, Mohandas K.” and the violation of the British salt taxes in the 1920’s.
      Yup, you’re totally clueless. “Irish Democracy” is breaking out, and the tighter you Progressives try to regulate things, the more voters will turn against you.

    • Cameraman

      Well Vbnh if our Forefathers Never broke Crown rule, we would be Limeys ..sometimes a Unconstitutional Law is well ….UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

      • Joe Kaminski

        Is English your second language? “Shall not be infringed” is pretty damn cut and dry.

        • rjudge

          It’s “infringing” upon their extreme delusional paranoia.

          • politiciansallsuck

            you don’t know what infringe means do you? lol typical lib.

          • rjudge

            You don’t know what the Constitution says and what it means. LOL! Typical right wing teabagger type. You think your interpretation of the Constitution is the only correct way.

            There is something known as the First Amendment, in case you did not know. But, that First Amendment does not guarantee “free speech” in all cases. There are exceptions. You cannot make threats against the President of the United States, or others, for that matter.

            In a famous Oliver Wendell Holmes ruling (Supreme Court Associate Justice in the early 1900s), he wrote that you cannot falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

            The same is true for the 2nd Amendment. There can and should be some restrictions to the types of firearms you can own. Did the founding fathers envision the types of weapons we have today? Do you think we should own nuclear weapons, even small ones?

            If, according to you, there should be absolutely no infringement on the right to bear arms, and I do mean absolutely none, then by your logic, there should be absolutely no laws at all against owning guns or obtaining guns because, hey, it’s in the Constitution! LOL. That means felons should be able to get guns. That means that severely mentally ill people should be able to get guns.

            As I said, typical right wing teabagger mentality.

          • Jason Peltier

            rjudge, do you own a gun?

          • rjudge

            What difference does that make, Jason?

            But, to answer your question, no I do not. But I have friends and relatives who do own guns. A couple of them are gun nuts, but others are much more reasonable and agree with me on many things.

            When I was a kid, I secretly bought a BB gun, without my parents knowing about it. My dad found that BB gun and took it away from me. He reminded me that when I was even younger, having my tonsils taken out, the kid in the hospital room I was in was there because someone had shot him in the chest accidentally with a BB gun.

            I know a woman whose mentally ill brother somehow broke into their father’s locked gun cabinet. Her mentally ill brother took out that legally owned gun, put a bullet in it, and shot himself to death.

            I know another person, a relative, who was a hunter. I have no qualms at all against hunters, but after his wife died at a young age, he grew despondent. He apparently was so depressed that he committed suicide by shooting himself with his hunting gun.

            Again, I have no qualms against hunting. I don’t want to see anyone’s hunting guns taken away. But I do worry about that relative’s daughter and her own kids. He possibly had some mental illness which caused him to kill himself. He has a daughter who is also a hunter. That daughter has 3 little kids. I worry about what might happen should something trigger a mental episode in that hunter’s daughter.

            I have every right to speak about guns, if that is the implication of your question. Guns affect us all. I just saw an article yesterday that said contrary to what the NRA says, having a gun in the home actually makes it more likely that women in abusive relationships will get killed by the same gun.

            As I have said elsewhere, I do not wish to take everyone’s gun away, and for those delusional, paranoid gun nuts who think Obama will do so, I must repeat that to take away everyone’s gun is impossible. There is no way the government would be able to confiscate 300 million guns. Absolutely no way. No one is saying to take away all of your guns, at least no one in Congress. And, no one includes me.

            As I’ve said elsewhere, though, out of industrialized countries, the United States has one of the highest gun murder rates in the world; it has one of the highest gun suicide rates in the world; and it has one of the highest accidental gun shooting rates resulting in death, in the world. Our gun culture is absolutely ridiculous. Bang, bang, shoot’ em up.

            I agree that we should enforce existing gun laws, if they are not being enforced. But that does not preclude and should not preclude from having just a little bit more restrictions on things like background checks. I agree we should do more about mental health issues, but other countries also have mentally ill people, and their gun murder rate is nothing like ours. I’ll even go so far as to say that I agree with doing something about violent video games…maybe put in a rating system like there is for movies. But, again, other countries also have violent video games.

            So, that’s my position.

          • Jason Peltier

            Well I asked because you seem to not know the laws regarding guns and felons.

            18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It says that anyone “who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” is barred from possessing a gun. The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are 1) those “pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices,” per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A); and 2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, — U.S. —, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005).

            And the part about ‘mentally ill’ people I can somewhat agree on. I would be fully for it, but now that President Obama has basically cancelled HIPPA laws about privacy (http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2013/01/22/why-doctors-should-not-ask-their-patients-about-guns/) I can see scenarios where little Johnny tells Doc Peterson that daddy owns a pistol. Then daddy comes to Doc Peterson who prescribes him xanax or valium for stress. Well, now daddy is considered ‘mentally ill’.

          • Sargeist

            Exceptions have already been made and there are weapons we cannot and do not own. These ad hominem attacks are degrading your credibility; they do not solidify or reaffirm your position. You’re putting words in his mouth, making hypothetical and asinine claims, and then use them to generalize anybody on the “right”. And we should take you serious?

          • rjudge

            “Ad hominem attacks?”

            Give me a break.

            I always find it interesting and somewhat amusing when many on the right claim that all the left can do is call names because they don’t use facts. I also find it quite sad because that’s often what many on the right does. They call names and do not use facts. I’ve heard limbaugh make these claims; I’ve heard limbaugh call people with whom he disagrees horrible names (Sandra Fluke, “prostitute” and “slut,” for example…..look at the horrible things he has said about Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton.)

            Did you see the names people called me? I was not the first person to call others here names. I have been on right wing sites, using facts, expressing my opinion, and have been accused of drinking, of taking drugs, and sitting in my parents’ basement eating Cheetos all day. I’ve been called an “idiot” and a “moron” on thoses, the latter of which people here called me first. I have been accused on this site of eating lead paint when I was little.

            Someone here made that all liberals can do is rely on their emotions to make decisions, but that is hogwash. That same person expressed his extreme paranoia that the government would take away his guns. Isn’t that emotion? There is no proof of this. It is incredibly ridiculous to believe such a thing. How in the world is the government going to ever take away 300 million firearms? As I asked elsewhere, what is the government going to do with those who refuse to give up their firearms, throw them into camps? Our prisons, as they are, are already overcrowded with some 2 million inmates. What if just 10 percent of those firearms owners refuse to turn their guns in? This is ridiculous. It is pure emotion that people like this are expressing. It is not fact based.

            I don’t think I generalized about anyone on the “right.” I think I said in many cases that some on the right; I specifically mentioned the gun nuts (on the right). I have mentioned that I have friends and family who own guns, and most of them are reasonable, while a couple are indeed gun nuts.

            I don’t take you seriously. You and others have made hypothetical and asinine claims yourself, so you are hypocritical.

          • rjudge

            Yes, exceptions have already been made, but new weapons are developed periodically. There is no reason not to consider them or things like higher powered magazines.

          • benched42

            As far as your 2nd Amendment point, there already ARE restrictions on the types of firearms you can own. Fully automatic firearms are banned in the US. Semi-automatic firearms are not, nor should they be. And if you don’t know the difference you have no reason to argue.

            Isn’t it odd, though, how the movies in Hollywood portray so many people owning and randomly shooting Uzis or Thompsons? And isn’t it especially odd that most of the crime with firearms are committed in cities with the strictest gun-control laws?

          • rjudge

            I have every right to argue, and I should also point out that I never mentioned any types of weapons anywhere on this thread, with possibly the exception of higher capacity magazines. But, I don’t even think I mentioned that here.

            It is not odd how movies in Hollywood show many people own and show various high powered guns. How is that odd? It is fantasy, in most cases. I love Clint Eastwood movies, especially his old spaghetti westerns and his Dirty Harry movies, but I would never agree that someone should do that in real life.

            No, that is not true that the highest crime with firearms are committed in cities with the strictest gun control laws. Yes, there are some areas this is the case. But I should note that there are 2 areas of Houston which are considered to have some of the highest crime rates in the country, including gun crimes. Houston and Texas have some of the more lax gun control laws in the country.

            St. Louis also has lax gun laws, yet it has a high rate of crime with firearms. Missouri, in fact, is trying to enact legislation which would make it illegal for local law enforcement to enforce federal gun laws. They tried last year, but the governor vetoed it. The Missouri state legislature tried to overturn his veto, but they lost by 1 vote. Now, as of one week ago, they are pushing this nonsense once again. Missouri does not have strict gun control laws, and they are trying to make them even less strict. But, look up the crime statistics for St. Louis.

          • Sargeist

            Look up crime statistics for East. St. Louis rather than St. Louis if you really want a nice read. I’m from St. Louis.

          • rjudge

            East St. Louis is not St. Louis. In fact, East St. Louis is in Illinois, not Missouri.

            I actually was born at St. Mary’s Hospital in East St. Louis and grew up in Belleville. I have lived in Chicago and in Europe.

            I now live in the St. Louis area. St. Louis does not have all that restrictive gun laws. If you’re from St. Louis, you also should know what the crazed and insane republicans in the state legislature tried to do last year and are now trying again to do…..criminalize law enforcement officials trying to enforce federal gun laws. Absolutely insane and ridiculous.

          • Sargeist

            Yes, I am well aware where East. St. Louis is located, been through it many times, unfortunately. I’m not saying it’s in Missouri at all. I grew up in Cahokia, so am familiar with the entire area. And I lived in the UK for a somewhat short time. Maybe the Republicans, like many people, don’t agree with the laws. If you live in St. Louis then you also know that the people typically involved in the shootings probably never got their guns legally in the first place, and they have no regard for the law. East. St. Louis has a much higher overall crime rate, but more strict gun laws. Chicago has incredibly more strict gun laws, but much higher related crime than St. Louis.

          • rjudge

            Sargeist, I see a number of gun owners who do agree with some of the things people like me want. Many agree that there should be tighter restrictions on who can get a gun. They have no problems with “universal” background checks. I’ve seen hunters say on blogs like this, on cable TV, etc. that they don’t understand why someone needs high capacity magazines. There are people who agree on both sides of the issue, and I just so happen to agree with having a little more strict gun control.

            Yes, I know most of the crimes committed in St. Louis, as well as other places, are not legally owned. But there are some that are not….Michael Dunn in Florida killing that young kid because he thought he had a gun. I am so against these “stand your ground” laws in the form they are in. And the Missouri legislature wants to criminalize law enforcement officers when they try to enforce federal gun laws??? I truly believe that the gun culture in this country is out of control. And, the more it is out of control, the more people will get more guns, illegal or not.

            I was initially responding to benched42’s comment that the places with the highest gun murder rates are the ones with the most strict gun control laws. That may be true in some cases, but not all. Yes, at the top of the list if Washington D.C., which by far has the highest gun murder rate in the country, and it does have strict gun control laws. But after Washington D.C., the state of Louisiana has the highest gun murder rate out of all of the states. Louisiana has some of the loosest, least restrictive gun laws in the country, and that includes New Orleans. It’s one of the easiest places to get a gun in this country. That statement benched42 made is a generalized statement which simply is not true in a number of cases.

            And, frankly, your statement about Chicago having much higher crime rates than St. Louis is not true, either. St. Louis has consistently rated near the very top of the list as being one of the most dangerous cities in the country, even more so than Chicago. St. Louis’ murder rate is one of the highest in the country, and most of those are committed with guns. Do you remember recently….think late last year…..there was something like 17 murders in north St. Louis just over one weekend alone? Yes, I’m sure many of these were committed with illegally obtained weapons, but I bet some also were legal; and, St. Louis does not have some of the most restrictive gun control laws.

          • benched42

            You didn’t mention particular types of weapons, but you DID state ” There can and should be some restrictions to the types of firearms you can own.” I pointed out that there actually are such restrictions.

            And I call Bull on the ” No, that is not true that the highest crime with firearms are committed in cities with the strictest gun control laws. ” line. Here are the stats from the latest US census and FBI statistics:

            1. Chicago
            2. New York
            3. Detroit
            4. Philadelphia
            5. Los Angeles
            6. Baltimore
            7. Houston

            I stopped at 7 because I like top 7’s (as opposed to top 5 or top 10). All cities have very strict gun-control laws.

            I will say that Chicago has dropped recently but still remains on this list. It dropped because of the Illinois Supreme Court stating that the gun control laws they had in place at the state level were unconstitutional. That led to many going out and purchasing their own firearms (which was illegal to do in Chicago before that ruling).

            The one slogan I really find poignant from the old NRA is: “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” Statistics have proven this time and again.

          • rjudge

            I do not believe you are correct. If I have time, I will prove otherwise.

            I do know that there are at least 2 neighborhoods in Houston which have some of the highest gun crime rates in the country, but Houston does not have the very strict gun laws you speak about. Texas is a state with not very strict gun laws.

            Louisiana is at the very top of the list for gun crimes in this country, yet it is one of the easiest states to get a gun in, even legally.

            And, once, again, I am not advocating outlawing of guns. Few people are. I am advocating things such as more strict background checks. I have never seen anyone give a satisfactory and logical answer as to why background checks should be made more strict, more universal. All I see is the nonsense that “well, background checks are required for all gun purchases,” and that simply is not true.

        • Joe Kaminski

          Because registry has universally led to confiscation. If you trust the government you are nothing but a fool and are of no use talking to.

      • politiciansallsuck

        actually, it does say it. “shall not be infringed” Remember?

      • C’est moi

        Are you referring to the Forefathers who enslaved an entire race and made them create wealth at the expense of tearing them away from their homelands, splitting up their families, making them work under the most horrid conditions, and basically treating people like animals? Are those the forefathers you’re talking about?

        • William Mills

          Yes and those are the forefothers that purchased slaves from ther own people just for the purpose, and was freed from ther slavery by those forefothers.

        • Cameraman

          Forty Acres and A Mule?

      • Sargeist

        “Shall Not Be Infringed” covers that pretty well. Registration is one of the first steps to confiscation, and they will use it to confiscate guns.

        • Sargeist

          Well, for one, the .223/5.56 round an AR-15 chambers isn’t capable of blowing anybodies head off, not even a child. I wish I wouldn’t have to comment on that, but you’re grossly exaggerating the picture to spur support for yourself, which is kind of pathetic. Children died, it is tragic and sickening to think about, but taking MY AR-15 solves absolutely no problems, especially considering the AR-15 is actually at the bottom of the list of weapons used in murders. Not to mention that the 10 years those “assault weapons” were banned, thanks to Clinton, made no difference in gun violence according to the FBI. Know why? Because they are rarely used in gun violence. Just because the rare occasions where they are used is extensively covered by the media doesn’t change the fact that they are still rarely used. How many children were killed in Chicago last year, or New York, where gun laws are very strict? A lot more than at Sandy Hook, but I don’t see nearly the public outcry on that. And yes, an AR-15 is considerably different than a musket, at least you realize this, but the founding fathers I’m sure also realized that muskets wouldn’t be used forever.
          Criminals do NOT care about the law. Make more laws and they will obey them as much as they did the last. This is a simple and realistic fact. You make laws and the only people’s rights you restrict are those of us that actually follow the law. Criminals will then be more capable because you have made us less capable.

      • Cameraman

        How About”Shall Not Be Infringed”?

  • Cameraman

    Is That You Sarah Brady?

  • lisalake

    Any one who thinks an endorsement by BristolPalin will be helpful to the patriots of CT should probably think again. #WhoCaresWhatSheThinks

    • Sarah4Prez

      You apparently care enough to spend you time making post about not caring. Sheesh.

  • Tim

    So just to clarify, crying states rights about laws infringing on the rights of homosexuals is okay, but states don’t have a right to their own gun laws? Not saying I agree with registering firearms, just asking.

    • politiciansallsuck

      THAT’S A CONVOLUTED WAY TO LOOK AT IT.

      • Tim

        It’s hardly convoluted. It’s a simple observation. According to Bristol, Sarah and their ilk, states’ rights apparently only applies when they agree with the state law in question.

        • politiciansallsuck

          lmao. You just affirmed that your argument is convoluted. why keep on tying to substantiate facts with references to white conservative females who dare speak the truth about socialism??? OK, we get it…you hate women who can think for themselves…we got it. And in doing so, You just made my point all the more evident. Thanks!!

    • Keithan Rogers

      I think the gay thing is good, giving minority groups the right to sue over anything they feel like is wrong too. “I got mistreated because I am gay” when really it was, “I got mistreated because I was an innapropriate jackass”

      • Keithan Rogers

        Ok, thanks for the insult. Credibility gone :) This country is getting too soft, if you can’t see it you are too soft. My sister is gay, I have no problem with people being gay, but saying a business owner can’t control his business is just stupid. We have too many stupid laws

        • Keithan Rogers

          Yeah, because she doesn’t walk around announcing to the world she is gay, just like I don’t walk around announcing I am straight. This law won’t affect her because it doesn’t require people to register or anything. You are the clear loser here mate, you don’t even understand the point. It’s in the same spirit of the law in Russia. The whole acceptance thing is getting so out of hand you can legally walk around naked in San Francisco’s gay district. That is not OK and my gay sister agrees. If you walk into my store dressed like a damn clown and are being openly gay you are distracting me and my customers. You do that crap behind your doors, not in public. I don’t like straight PDA either. You sir are a bigot and a fool. Try having your own opinion instead of parroting what the rest of the media says. The media who all reported on a wolf in Sochi that was actually in Jimmy Kimmel’s studio. You need to do your own research mate or you risk looking like a damned idiot. Just like when you respond to this and I don’t because I have better things to do. Have a good one.

          • Michelle Erb

            So if she wants to rent a one bedroom apartment with her partner? They want to visit each other in the hospital, make medical decisions for each other?

          • rjudge

            That AZ law is an incredibly stupid and bigoted law.

            Sure, your sister may not go around telling everyone she is gay, but what happens if you or one of her friends get drunk one night and tells everyone else that she is? I saw an article in the Chicago Tribune today about an alderman in Chicago. Someone posted a video of him at his bachelor party 2 years ago. There were strippers at that bachelor party. The person who shot the video said that he did not post the video on YouTube; he claims he does not know who posted it.

            Things that are supposed to be secret do sometimes get revealed. That AZ law is very discriminatory. Have you seen the list of major U.S. companies that have now spoken out against that law? Apple has spoken out against it; ATT has spoken out against it; American Airlines has spoken out against it; I just saw that Delta Airlines just spoke out against it.

            And, some of the republicans who voted for the law now are asking the governor to veto it.

            Do your own research. It is a very stupid, discriminatory law. And, do your own research on Arizona’s history of discrimination. They have a very long history of doing things which are discriminatory and bigoted. Look at AZ’s history on the MLK holiday, as only one example.

          • rjudge

            The thing Keithan and others like him do not understand is that gay people are still discriminated against in this country, just because they are gay. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Laws like the one sitting before Jan Brewer only reinforce the idea that people can legally discriminate against gay people.

            I saw that there are a number of other states (red states) also trying to pass legislation similar to the AZ law. These republicans just do not seem to learn. They still are trying to appeal to their base of far right religious nuts.

  • Michelle Erb

    The media did them a favor by not publicizing their idiocy:

    How dare they allow us to keep assault weapons which are now
    illegal! We do not want to accept the state’s generous offer to let us
    grandfather in weapons that even Ronald Reagan said should be illegal.
    We would rather not register them and face arrest.

    It is not good enough for us that we could literally own a ton of weapons and not register them as long as they meet the current law. We want to own illegal weapons and not show any proof that we had them before the law changed! Merica!

    • Sargeist

      Anybody who uses the term “assault weapons” automatically loses credibility and should be ignored. It’s a BS liberal media fabricated term used to incite fear and provoke an emotionally driven response, not an informed and intelligent one. The same people typically refer to an AR-15 as a “machine gun”, or a magazine as a “clip”, or believe there are no background checks in general, or at gun shows, which there is. The most misinformed, uninformed, and ignorant people I’ve seen in these arguments are always those pushing for more “gun control”, which that term itself is also ridiculous.

      • Michelle Erb

        That is such a bogus talking point. Are you really comfortable calling Ronald Reagan “ignorant”?

        ‘Assault weapon” is a legal term. Do you not understand what “assault” means? You do understand that these are weapons that can cause great bodily harm?

        I apologize for going to law school. I know you guys hate all that book learnin stuff.

        BTW even if someone does use an incorrect term, using that as an excuse to ignore everything else they have to say makes you look like a cowardly child (“I am holding my ears. I can’t hear you.”)

        • MGD
        • Sargeist

          No, it is not a “bogus talking point”, it’s fact. It is a legal term, but it is still a heavily debated term because it is misleading and a fabrication used to push a political agenda. Being a “legal term” does not exclude it from such scrutiny. ANY weapon can cause “great bodily harm”, be it a firearm or otherwise, and it’s the person with the weapon, not the weapon itself. A gun is an inanimate object, it is incapable of doing anything on it’s own. How is it the DHS can buy thousands of fully automatic AR-15’s and call them “defense weapons”, but they call my semi automatic AR-15 an “assault weapon”? So if I use my AR purely in a defensive way, or never at all, it is still an “assault weapon”? The fully automatic and three round burst M16 and M4 the military uses is an assault rifle, which still is not this so called “assault weapon”, but my AR-15 is neither. Not to mention that these “assault weapons” actually account for the LEAST amount of gun-related crime.

          • Michelle Erb

            Well they certainly cannot be categorized as hunting weapons or even home defense. Their purpose is to mow down a large amount of people in a short period of time. And you do not have a constitutional right to own one. The authors of the constitution simply did not envision that type of firepower.

            Yes they account for the least amount of gun deaths BUT the most preventable. Street criminals will always be able to get weapons, but they typically use them on other street criminals.

            The young male mass murderers tend to only buy their weapons through primarily legal channels. Since they tend to be socially inept, they are incapable of buying weapons on the street. Adam Lanza actually tried to buy guns on his own and was turned down because of his age. If his mother had not had an arsenal just waiting for him, those children would still be alive.

            In the Gabby Giffords case, the shooter was only taken down when he had to reload, even though there were armed persons present. If he had not been able to get off 20 shots from one magazine Christina Taylor Green would still be alive.

            No law can prevent all deaths, but can you really blame Connecticut for trying to pass laws that will prevent some? After the horrors of Newton?

          • bobby

            You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Did you know that the first rotating cylinder weapon (large revolver) was actually patented in 1718…..it fired 9 to 12 shots per minute depending on how fast you could load…..doesn’t sound like much by today’s standards but, this was in a time when average shots per minute were in the 2 to 4 range. So…your argument that the authors of the Constitution couldn’t envision where firearms technology was headed is invalid or, misinformed at the very least. I am not an expert shooter by any means..I am above average but, not an expert and I can have my weapon reloaded before my empty magazine hits the ground. I actually practice with empty magazines over my bed…in most cases I can have my weapon reloaded before the empty magazine hits the bed…..so the idea that magazine capacity will end mass shootings is a dangerous and deadly assumption for someone thinking of trying to rush someone that actually practices….

        • Sarah4Prez

          Apology accepted.

    • rlrork55

      You sound like a total liberal moron who misses the entire point Ms. Erb.

      • Michelle Erb

        What is the point? Please explain it to me in small words.

        You only have to register your weapon if you want to be able to grandfather in something that is now illegal. So it is not really about “registration” is it?

    • Sarah4Prez

      Lenin had a name for people like you – “useful idiots.”

    • Katy

      You need to pull your head out of whatever cloud cluster or sandpit you’re living in! Forcing LAW-ABIDING, LEGAL gun owners to register their LEGALLY OBTAINED firearms is not Constitutional. You have no idea what an “assault” weapon is. We should ban steak knives, forks, sticks, cars, and rocks because these can all be used to assault someone. Heck, my fake nails could poke out someone’s eye! Criminals are not going to turn themselves and their guns in, so why should I give up my protection?

      • Michelle Erb

        If its not constitutional why aren’t the conservative courts overturning it? Could it be because the right to bear arms does not extend to every single category of weapons?

        p.s. registration is not “infringement.”

        • gary4205

          AH, but courts HAVE overturned these things!

          Hell, just last week, the 9th Circuit Court, the most FAR LEFT, liberal loony farm in the country, just said the RIGHT to bear arms, even OPEN CARRY, is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, guaranteed by the Constitution.

          So take your stupid elsewhere.

      • rjudge

        Steak knives, forks, sticks, cars, rocks, and your nails usually do not kill people from far away, say 100, 200 feet, unless you know otherwise. These things also were not designed to kill people.

        • Katy

          But yet, a knife, a car, a rock, a stick and countless everyday items can and have killed people. Explain to me how making the law abiding citizens register every gun is going to cut down on gun crime. If an armed criminal breaks into your home, do you think that reasoning with them, pleading, begging for your life is going to make them see the error of their ways and stop their life of crime? By all means, try that. If they break into my home, they’ll not have the chance to make me beg for my life. It is better to be prepared and never need the protection than to need it an not be prepared. Am I a gun nut? I guess that according to the liberals I am. Label me what you want. I still will stand up for my rights as an American citizen.

          • rjudge

            You know, Katy. You and others twist arguments so badly.

            I never said that all of your precious guns should be taken away. I never did. No politician I know of has said that.

            I never said gun registration would prevent crime, but I think it would help track crimes.

            Did you know that there was a study just released this past week which said that there is overwhelming evidence that homes with guns in them unfortunately result in the deaths of more women? The reasoning behind this, and there is data to back it up, is that there is a domestic dispute, and the guy shoots the woman.

            I’m not using this as evidence to say you should not own a gun….and, again, I never said your gun should be taken away. I’m just saying that you probably are not as safe as you think you are, or, at least many people, especially women, are not as safe as they think they are.

          • bobby

            rjudge….Just stop. Registration wouldn’t help track crime at all….since most shooting crimes are committed with weapons purchased or made illegally that either have no serial number or have the serial number filed off. If a serial number was present, the only crime it WOULD help track….is theft. When I was deployed, I was glad my wife had a Remington 870 where she could get to it easily if she needed to but was still safely secured from our daughter getting her hands on it. Oh, and by the way……regarding you “No politician I know pf has said that.” Comment….see this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

          • rjudge

            No, I will not stop, Bobby. There are too many frkn’ gun nuts out there who think their “freedums” are more important than the lives of little kids. They are too frkn’ obstinate to make even little changes in things like more strict background checks.

            I won’t look at your youtube video. That was 1995. Feinstein has not said anything like that in years. And you know darned well that if any politician proposed anything like that, that politician would be one of a very few, and that politician likely would be booted out of office. Hell, the damned republicans in congress won’t even pass more strict background checks, even though a large majority of Americans are in favor of that.

          • bobby

            Here you go…February last year. Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky…..referring to the Sandy Hook shooting as a “moment of oppotunity” to push gun legislation. So there you go….yet another one that wants them all banned. So….it’s just more of you….you know….being wrong http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVz2lHODQvs

          • rjudge

            Bobby,… “just stop,” already.

            Bobby, I don’t really care. You know darned well that would never, ever happen. You are delusional if you think anyone would be able to ban all guns.

            You are wrong if you think that could and would happen. Absolutely wrong. This is proof that some people have extreme paranoia. This is crazy talk. You people don’t want any incremental gun laws because you think Obama is going to take away all of your guns. That’s nuts. It is a lie. Only paranoid, delusional people think that.

            And most people, even those who do want all guns to go away, do know that will never, ever happen.

            So, please, Bobby…..”just stop!”

          • bobby

            So….you are admitting you don’t care when there is video proof directly conflicting with your statement of “No politician has said that?” You really just did us all a favor and admitted how delusional YOU really are by admitting you don’t care about facts when presented to you. I know nobody is coming for all of our guns…..it’s not only political suicide but, logistically impossible even if the laws were in place to make it happen. I’m not some paranoid nut job with a bunch of guns. I just have firsthand experience with exactly what people are capable of doing to each other.

            I never said anyone was coming for our guns…..I was just posting that pesky little thing called real evidence that shoots down your claim that no politician ever said they want to ban all guns when, in fact, several have.

          • rjudge

            Let’s put it this way, Bobby.

            1. Technically, Jan Jakowski did not say she wanted to “ban all guns.” She said that she didn’t know if banning hand guns was out of the question. Yes, she did say she is against handguns. She is an idealist, but she did not directly say that she was going to take away everybody’s gun.

            2. I will admit that, yes, I made a mistake in that someone did say something which might make you think she said she was going to take away all guns. Can you, bobby, ever admit that you make mistakes? It is human to make mistakes, but the right, people like you, rarely admit fault; you rarely apologize. The left does admit they’ve made mistakes and does apologize, but, again, it is rare that the right does. And, again, it is human to make mistakes; it is human to apologize.

            Did you know that before the 2012 elections, Wayne Lapierre said that if elected, Obama would be confiscating all guns. That is a flat out lie. And that is why you probably believe the same thing. You claim, now, that you know that is not possible, but why did the leader of the NRA make such a claim? He lied; he was irresponsible in making that statement. And, delusional people believe him because he is the leader of the NRA.

            And, that, pal, is some of those “pesky little thing(s) called real evidence” that back up my assertions about you and people like you.

          • bobby

            Except that yet again, in your rush to get your reply out there you skipped over the part about me saying I don’t believe that they are out to grab all the guns….or even COULD if they wanted to. I’m not even a member of the NRA because they are a joke and and have spewed some idiotic junk in the past. You don’t have assertions….you have assumptions. You assume I am a Republican or maybe even a Tea Party person, I am not. You assumed I listen to and believe everything that the NRA says, I don’t. Don’t even get me started on lying politicians….there are way too many of those residing on both sides of the aisle to even name. You don’t have enough information to make an assumption about where my political interests are at all. You have no idea who I am and, if I asked you to prove that you know me……the only thing that you could offer is that I like guns…..that is the only thing you know about me for sure. I’ll say it again since you missed it the first few times I said it. I know they aren’t after all our guns…..but there are those in congress that would jump at the chance to do it, should it ever become feasible.

          • rjudge

            Bobby, did I ever say you were a Republican? Did I ever say you personally were a teabagger? No, I did not.

            You told me to “just stop.” Why should I when I feel very strongly about this issue?

            You called me “delusional,” and that shows me that you do not know what the meaning of that word is. I originally said, “No politician I know of has said that” they wanted to get rid of all guns. So, if I did not know of any who said this, my comment was a mistake. I honestly knew of no politician who said what you claim….and, even that Youtube video does not show Jan Schakowsky saying exactly what you claim she said. It was not delusional of me to make that remark.

            If, on the other hand, someone like Wayne Lapierre makes a comment that Obama wants to take away all of your guns, that is either a complete lie, or it is delusional. But either way, I have absolutely no doubt that there are delusional gun nuts out there who believe what Wayne Lapierre said. Why? Because they are delusional, and because Lapierre is head of the NRA. This is a good example of delusion; your claim that I am delusional is a very poor example of what it means to be delusional. It was a mistake.

            People who argue so vociferously as you do often are fans of the NRA. So, maybe I did assume you are a fan, but you sure say things that sound like they come from the NRA. The NRA is vehemently opposed to any gun control, and that’s the way you come across.

            But, in any case, you initially told me to “just stop,” there is no reason for me to “just stop.” Many people feel the way I do. The majority of Americans want to have more strict background checks. Someone here posted a link to a site that claims Reagan was very much against gun control, but that is not true. After he was shot, he greatly changed his mind on gun control. He even put an open letter in newspapers saying what should be done on gun control.

            I will not stop just because people like you believe differently than I do.

          • bobby

            Wayne Lapierre is just as full of BS as any other politician. Yes , I do believe differently than you but, I only used the word “delusional” after I posted something contradicting what you said and your reply was that you didn’t care. Whether you meant it to sound that way or not, when you deny something put right in front of you…..it does look pretty delusional. You did, in context, call me a delusional NRA supporter. Which, as we both know….are usually extreme right republicans and/or tea party members….USUALLY, but not always. I don’t go around making threats to people who want to take my guns or anything like that…..but, I do believe that, I should be able to have the same tools at my disposal for defense as someone who intends to do me or my family harm. By that, I mean criminals in general. The tyrannical government people refer to is on that list of people, but way, way, way down the list on REAL threats.

          • rjudge

            Bobby, I think you realize that one problem with blogs like this is that most do not really know exactly what someone is saying. Maybe you’ll get to know someone better by seeing a number of their comments over time.

            I have not read close to the 500+ comments on this thread, but most I have read in favor of what Bristol Palin said; most that I have read that are against any gun control are vehemently against any gun control. It is clear in most cases. It is clear that most on this thread are right wingers and like the tea party. People on this thread, and many others I have seen, make absolutely false statements about Obama. People on this thread have claimed that Nazis were real socialists, and that is not true. As I pointed out, someone here posted a link which tries to show that Reagan was against gun control, but that is not true. After he was shot, he was very much in favor of things like a ban on assault weapons.

            So, many of us do make assumptions about what people are saying and what type of person they are. I don’t mean to be confrontational, but the very first thing you said to me was “rjudge, just stop.” And, to me, that sounds like what a far right teaparty type person might say because most of them accept no compromise; they don’t want to hear anything that is different than what they believe in.

            And, I also would like to point out that when I said that I “didn’t care” what was said in that video, I really meant that. Jan Schakowsky is one person in Congress; there are 435 people in the House and 100 in the Senate. I don’t care if there are 10 videos of different people in the House saying that they want all guns taken away. None of this makes a difference in my point. And, my point was that there is absolutely by no means a majority at all of people who want to take away everyone’s guns. And, as you have acknowledged, this will never happen. So, I really do not care what Jan Schakowsky said. If she said she wants to take away everyone’s guns, keep in mind that I originally said that “I don’t know of anyone who said that,” and that is a true statement. I did not know anyone who said that at the time I made that statement.

          • rjudge

            And, by the way, Bobby. Paranoid, delusional people are a great danger to society if they own guns.

          • gary4205

            Really? No study backs that up!

          • rjudge

            gary, study or not study, you really couldn’t comprehend because you are a paranoid delusional nut. You really are. You have said many, many nonsensical things here, things that not only do not make sense, but things that simply are not true.

            Once again, gary, get some help. Please. I am very concerned about you.

          • Michelle Erb

            Sandy Hook is not an “excuse” to finally enact reasonable gun laws it is a “reason.”

          • bobby

            I didn’t say it was an “excuse” so you obviously have no idea how to use quotation marks…..she used the words “Now is a moment of opportunity, there’s no doubt about that” during the time when Sandy Hook was the incident driving the decision making. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVz2lHODQvs

          • gary4205

            Hey stupid, EVERY mass shooting has been done by a far left wing DEMOCRAT. MOST of them have been done with guns obtained illegally.

            You want to know the MAIN factor in all of these mass killings? They happened in so-called “gun free zones” These killers sought out “gun free zones” so they could kill as many people as possible, KNOWING there wouldn’t be any LAW ABIDING CITIZENS there, armed and able to stop them from killing!

            Gun free zones, like every thing else the democrat party thinks up, puts human beings at peril, and gets far too many Americans killed.

            Ban “gun free zones” and ban liberalism, and humanity will be safe.

            As long as the evil known as liberalism exists, ALL of humanity is at peril!

          • rjudge

            No, gary. Your opening line is pure bunk. Someone accused me of having no credibility, but that statement alone tells me you are a whackjob and that you have absolutely no credibility.

            No, most of those mass shootings have not been caused by guns that were obtained illegally. No, your statement that “EVERY” mass shooting was committed by a far left wing “DEMOCRAT” is completely false.

            gary, I won’t even respond to your gun free zone comments, except to say that there is absolute no evidence, zero, nada, zilch that any of these killers chose their victims because they were in a gun free zone.

            gary, please see a shrink. You are completely unhinged. You are very unstable. You lie too much. You really need some help, son.

        • gary4205

          Most knives ARE designed to kill people! Oh, and a bow and arrow is as deadly as ANY gun. From far away. The stupid is strong in you.

          • rjudge

            Oh, gary. You’re way too easy.

            No, knives are nothing like guns, and neither are bows and arrows. Can you tell me of one single instance where there were multiple killings at one location by someone throwing a knife from far away? Or, can you tell me one single instance of multiple people being killed by a bow and arrow?

            I can name a number of instances that multiple people were killed from afar with a gun.

            And, gary, you and your ilk are just ridiculous. You twist what others have said. I have never said that all guns should be taken away. I have said that there should be tighter restrictions on who can get guns…..e.g., more strict background checks. I have said that I believe the higher capacity magazines should be restricted. I never, ever said all guns should be taken away. I gave the example of killing from a distance to counter you and your ilk’s frequent argument that other things kill.

  • lauren

    I too am protesting this tyranny by refusing to register my car next year!!!

    • Sarah4Prez

      If you don’t see the difference between driving a car on public roads and a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, then you are what Lenin called a “useful idiot.”

      • lauren

        Well always good to be useful! Please explain the difference tho.

      • Michelle Erb

        The right to keep and bear arms does not apply to any weapon you can possibly think of. You do not have a constitutional right to own machine guns, tanks, nuclear bombs etc. The Supreme court is clear on this. Even Ronald Reagan agreed,

        So there is actually no difference between registering this particular category of firearm and cars. No one has to register them though, you can simply choose to own different kinds of guns, you know the type one would actually use to hunt or protect one’s home, as opposed to mowing down many people in a very short period of time.

        • Sarah4Prez

          Yes, there is a difference. And the fact that men in power have chosen to assert that certain weapons are not protected by the Constitution ignores the purpose of the second amendment; which is not about protecting the right to go duck hunting, nor even the right to personal protection against criminals as you suggest – it is to guarantee that we have the right to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. The fact that you (and too many others) accept that this right has been, and continues to be, incrementally stripped away by statists does not change the fact of the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

          Go to Youtube and search for Dr Susan Gratia-Hupp, who saw he parents killed in cold blood at a cafeteria in Texas and listen to her spot-on testimony. She reminds the Senators of what I just said – that the purpose of the Second amendment is about We the People being able to protect ourselves against the government, should that need every arise (and I hope it doesn’t).

          • Michelle Erb

            You do realize the government has bombs, tanks and drones? Good luck staging your rebellion with ak-47s.

          • Sarah4Prez

            Considering I spent 24 years in the Military, yes, I’m well aware what the government has. I’m also not suggesting nor calling for any sort of rebellion.

            BUT… the Ukraine government has bombs and tanks also, but that hasn’t stopped the citizens from revolting. The fact that the British Empire had the Colonists grossly out manned and out gunned, didn’t stop those crazy old guys we call our Founding Fathers! Again – the purpose of the second amendment is to allow the people to defend against a Tyrannical government. It has zero to do with duck hunting or self-protection, which are mearly nice side benefits. Of course, we are lucky enough to live in a country where the government would NEVER become so tyrannical that the people would feel compelled to rise up. That sort of thing only happens to those “other” countries.

            When I was 12 years old, we lived in Germany (Dad was US Army). My Father took us on a history tour in Europe one summer. I visited the concentration camp at Dachau. I visited Anne Frank’s home in Amsterdam. Even at that young age, the impact it had on me was huge. That a government could be so abhorrent to fellow human beings made me realize that the ability of people to protect themselves against such atrocities is one of the most important rights our founders ensured for future generations.

          • rjudge

            I used to live in The Netherlands. I have been to the Anne Frank house a number of times. I have been to Dachau 4 or 5 times, as well as Auschwitz. These have been some of the most sobering experiences of my life, but they never caused me to think that I should own a weapon.

            Most people realize you cannot get rid of all of the guns in this country, and I don’t know of a single person in politics who is advocating to do this. What some people are advocating are things like more strict and universal background checks; why should someone be able to get a high capacity magazine when a lower capacity magazine could suffice? I’ve seen hunters say that they never need more than a few rounds of ammunition in their guns.

            The gun culture in this country is way out of control. The NRA is ridiculous in their demands and their views. No, laws that some of us want enacted won’t solve all the gun problems in this country, but they woudl help. It’s just sad that there are so many extremists when it comes to being pro-gun advocates.

          • gary4205

            The “gun culture” is called the CONSTITUTION. If you don’t like it, NO ONE, and I do mean NO ONE is forcing you to live in America.

            In fact, I bet we could get a collection up just from readers on this blog to send you to the sort of place you’d feel right at home, like North Korea!

          • rjudge

            Oooh, love your threat of sending me to the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea!”

            You claim hitler was a “socialist,” well, North Korea is officially called the “DPRK,” as mentioned above. How about that…North Korea is a “republic,” just like we are!

            How old are you, Gary, 12?

          • Michelle Erb

            I am so sick of you people bringing up the Holocaust as an argument to bear arms. Hitler came into power by embracing the hate, fear and, resentment of the German people of communists, jews, homosexuals and other non-aryans. (Sounds like the tea party mindset). He was loved by a large percentage of Germans.

            The German people were armed to the teeth, because they made up the German army. Jews did have their weapons confiscated along with all of their other property. But even when they did have weapons they could not make more than a small temporary stand against, the police, the army and their fellow citizens. It took the greatest military powers in the world several years to beat back the Germans.

            If the German people had wanted to turn against Hitler they would have done so through the very military that they belonged to,not ,by firing off some civilain ownedAK-47s.

            The Ukranians used Molotov cocktails and other homemade devices. They did not actually defeat their army, they simply made a showing and got the legislature and military to come around to their side. They did it because the majority of that part of the country was on their side. That will never be the case for the tea party. You are now hated by the majority of Americans. When you do manage to pass your fascist laws we go through legal channels to turn things around.

          • rjudge

            Exactly, MIchelle. Very good points.

            I do strongly believe tea party types are much like the nazis. They think their opinions and beliefs are the only way. They think it’s their way or the highway. People like ted cruz and richard mourdock and others have openly said that they will not compromise, which is something this country has been built on….compromise.

            People like beck have used that hitler/nazi comparison so many times about Obama, and he and others claim that it is because the nazis were the “National Socialist Party.” They were not socialists, and it is a fact that Hitler hated communists. In fact, he argued against the “Marxist Jews” and their belief.

            People like beck are like hitler in that they prey on the fears and hatreds of the common folks out there (the tea party, who call themselves a “grassroots” organization). People like beck are like hitler in that they are very nationalistic. It’s “USA, USA, USA” all the way. Everything American is good; everything else is bad. That’s how the nazis and hitler felt about Germans (except for German Jews).

          • gary4205

            The Nazis were SOCIALISTS, just like Barack Obama and his democrat party.

            The TEA Party [Taxed Enough Already] are simply people who want to reign in this big corrupt, out of control federal government, and go back to the CONSTITUTION, and the RULE of LAW.

            Anyone who compares the TEA Party to the Nazis is too stupid to be involved in adult conversation. In other words, a democrat.

          • rjudge

            See my other comment, moron.

            No, the nazis were not socialists. You people call Obama a “socialist,” a “marxist,” a “communist,” etc. You don’t know the first thing about what these are and how they are different.

            You don’t know that Hitler preached against “Jewish Marxism.” He did not like Marxism, just like you do not like that “marxist” in the White House.

            You know, most people do think there is corruption in government. Most people would like to cut our deficit. But most people are not like the teabaggers, who are selfish, hateful, and ignorant SOBs.

            Oh, the “CONSTITUTION” and the “RULE OF LAW.” Geez, man. All caps? Why do you ignoramuses like to repeat these talking points over and over and over? What “rule of law” is being broken, may I ask? If Obama is breaking so many laws, why has he not been impeached? Why haven’t only but 2 or 3 cases been brought before the Supreme Court, cases questioning Obama’s plans?

            Anyone who makes the hitler and nazi comparisons like glen the idiot beck did some 200 times on Fox News is a hate monger and is way too stupid to be involved in an “adult conversation.” In other words, a teabagger!

          • Matthew Childs

            Michelle… you have no idea what the tea party is about or what they stand for you probably get your info from CNN or MSNBC instead of being a sheep why don’t you go to a meeting and find out for yourself. Legal channels that is so funny like passing obamacare without reading it now look at the crap we are stuck with or telling us that it was a video tape that killed 4 Americans in Benghazi or the IRS wasn’t targeting conservative (we know they were) or the NSA not listening to our phone calls or reading our emails. If you think for one moment that the majority of the American ppl believe that liberals have our best interest you are so sadly mistaken the majority of the American people are so tired of this President lies that all 4 state that have a democrat up for reelection will go to a republican then we will have the house and the senate.

          • Michelle Erb

            So you don’t hate Muslims, think this is a “Christian Nation” and the President was born in Kenya? You are not trying to pass laws to discriminate against homosexuals, force women to have vaginal ultrasounds, eliminate the kind of regulations that prevent poisoning the water, toxic medications, and ecoli in our food. . You do not support closing health clinics, preventing hundreds of thousands from getting medicaid, and giving billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies and Walmart?

            Please let me know when even one member of the tea party dissociates themselves from the racist and anti-Muslim signs, slogans and souvenirs that show up at every rally?

            Are antiamerican Ted Nugent and Ted Cruz still your heroes? Do you fight to force public school children to sing songs praising Jesus at Christmas time even if they are Jewish? Do you boycott stores that say “Happy Holidays”? Do you carry confederate flags to the gates of the white house?

            I think I know enough.

          • Matthew Childs

            Boy ol boy Michelle..Are you atheist? weather school children sing song at christmas has nothing to do with tea party.Calling Obama out on his shit isn’t anti American BUT THE 1ST AMENDMENT give him that right. Ted Cruz I do like …I don’t think the president should get a blank check to spend all he wants that why the American people elected Republican to the house who by the way are in charge of the purse. I myself wouldn’t have an abortion but what other ppl do with they body’s is none of my business. So you have been to a rally and seen first hand that they were selling anti Muslim souvenirs?Michelle you are so full of shit you have no idea what the tea party is about you just spout out shit you read online.No Im not against Muslims but do I believe the Boston Bomber should be living on the tax payers dime HELL NO do i think he should feel the same pain that he inflicted on those ppl at the marathon Hell Yes. I’m done

          • Richard Smit

            there is nothing wrong about Sarah Palins views on Abortion.

          • Richard Smit

            Sarah Palin doesnt supprt giving subsidies for any Corporation! She is very much against Corporate power! and there is nothing wrong with her views on about her views on abortion and gay marrriage! And you Anti -Theists do also boycot Stores thatsay “Marry Christmas”! and get offended everytime when you hear the word “god”!

          • Richard Smit

            I am not playing anything!

          • Crystal Ferguson

            So it’s OK that their property was taken? It’s OK that their guns were taken because they couldn’t have won anyway? That makes no sense. Do you know any Germans? More than one? I lived there for a year. They are some of the most depressed and oppressed people I’ve ever met. But you want to get them riled up? Talk about Hitler. Or the SS. They hate the SS so much they even changed their alphabet!

          • Michelle Erb

            How twisted are you? It is not okay that the right wing Christan population of Germany scapegoated the jews for their problems calling them Christ killers and subhuman mongrels. Having their guns taken away was the least of their problems. The hateful Germans of that time were all too happy to seize Jewish businesses and ultimately turn their Jewish neighbors in to the Gestapo.

            My only point was that taking guns away from the Jews had ZERO to do with how Hitler gained and held power. It is beyond offensive that the very people who are now claiming this is a “Christian Nation” are making that argument.

            Yes modern Germans are deeply ashamed of that past and would not repeat it. It is the tea party Christians in this country who failed to learn that lesson as they scapegoat Muslims, homosexuals, and “communists,” while ignoring the ills that are being caused by the same large corporations that have distracted them into scapegoating the poor and gotten them to support policies that actually go against the peoples’ interests.

          • Richard Smit

            Tea Party has nothing to do with Corporations. Sarah Palin had actually faught against the Power of Corporations in the time when she was governor.

          • rjudge

            Do you really and honestly think that people with guns can protect themselves from such a “tyrannical government” that has nuclear weapons, an entire army, airforce, and marines (and coast guard), fighter jets, a whole array of tanks, very high powered and automatic weapons?

          • Katy

            You do realize that a small group of untrained citizens took on the greatest military force in the world at the time and won, right?

          • Michelle Erb

            Um No. We were across the ocean and on our home ground. We also had the assistance of the french and it was not exaclty the entire British army, but just the part they sent. We were only one colony to the British.

            Moreover, they did not exactly have modern airplanes, tanks, drones, or nuclear weapons. So things have changed a bit. But you are right your ak-47s would beat back the Bristish army of 1776.

          • Katy

            Once again, the only gun your little liberal mind can think of is an AK-47. Do you have the slightest clue of what CT law considers to be an “assault” weapon and what weapons must be registered?? This is the part of the law just for pistols.

            A semiautomatic pistol that has an
            ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the
            following:
            i. an ammunition magazine that
            attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
            ii. a threaded barrel capable of
            accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
            iii. a shroud that is attached to, or
            partially or completely encircles, the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
            iv. a manufactured weight of fifty
            ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
            v. a semiautomatic version of an
            automatic firearm.

            Here is the list of all specific guns that they want registered. This is simply an oppressive law.

            Any selective-fire firearm capable
            of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the
            user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec
            Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol;
            Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett
            Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto
            Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of
            Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and
            Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR,
            or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and
            XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech
            Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94
            and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 Carbien type; Intratec TEC-9 and
            Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding
            stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 Series; Spectre
            Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3;
            Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12
            revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; USI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and
            Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson “Linda” Pistol.

          • bobby

            Michelle…..the Constitution is referred to many times as a “living document” for a reason. If you feel the need to follow the Constitution how it was written back then and NOT evolve it to modern times…..feel free to give up your right to vote….

          • Michelle Erb

            Right and the evolution is that the “right to bear arms” does not include every kind of modern weaponry you can conceive of. You do not get to own nuclear bombs, tanks, or machine guns, because we evolve with the times.

          • Aaron Barr

            I’ve read several of your comments and simply could not make it through this whole thread as I have to go to work. However, I wanted to point out to you that those commenting that the 2nd Amendment was there to protect the people from the tyranny of an oppressive government are absolutely correct.

            It is only in recent times, really sometime after the end of WW I, that gun control was even attempted. The Amendment states that right to keep and bear “arms” shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say firearms, even though muskets had been referred to as firesticks firearms and many other similar terms up until that point in history.

            The term “arms” covers the whole gamut and is really just a shortened version of the word “armaments” and is also where the term “armorer” is derived from. Arms, armaments, armor, these all have the same general connotation.

            It is also important to remember that at the time the constitution was adopted cannon (the mortars & howitzers of the day) as well as warships were all privately owned.The fledgling US Navy was supplemented by privately owned gunships during the Revolution.

            And lest you forget Michelle, we were facing the largest part of the might of the British army which was so decimated by American forces that they had to hire German mercenaries, called Hessians, to supplement the ranks of the regular British Army.

            Then as now, the limits to what people could own were controlled by their ability to afford them. I see no problems with letting average citizens own whatever they want. Why? Quite simply because the average US Citizen can’t afford an Abrams tank. And for those that can, there should be absolutely nothing in the way of them getting them.

            And while we are on the topic, the preventing of criminals, who have served their time and are no longer on parole, from being able to own guns is also unconstitutional. It was extremely common to provide those being released from Federal prisons with the firearm they had when they went in during the 1800’s, particularly in the West.

          • rjudge

            Times change, Katy. Yes, it is possible some might be able to take on our military, but that’s a huge if. And, it is also a lot of paranoia on many people’s parts. People have lied so much about what Obama might do. glen the idiot beck made some 200 hitler and nazi comparisons of Obama and his administration; as much as he and you probably hate Obama, he has done nothing, absolutely nothing, that compares to what nazis did. And people like you and beck think that was a valid comparison because beck and people like you claim that the nazis were “socialists,” but they were socialists in name only. beck’s purpose in using this horrid and hateful comparison was simply to invoke hatred and paranoia about Obama.

            Wayne Lapierre totally lied when he made the claim that if Obama were elected to a 2nd term, he would take all of your guns away. That was a total lie. And, yet, people like you believe things like this (or pretend that you believe it). That is just too much paranoia, and, frankly, that’s sad.

          • Katy

            “The best way to take control over a people and control them
            utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights
            by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the
            people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past
            the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”


            Adolf Hitler,

            Mein Kampf

            It all starts somewhere.

          • rjudge

            Katy,

            I tried replying to one of your tiresome hitler quotes but got the message “awaiting moderation.” I will try again, later, but for now, you simply do not know what you are talking about. I lived in a socialist country, The Netherlands. They had absolutely no loss of freedoms. Most of Europe has socialist governments. Canada has a socialist government.

            Do you like social security? That is socialism.

            Did you know that the nazis really were not socialists? They were fascists, very much on the right. Any reputable historian will tell you that.

            Did you know that Hitler hated communists? He talked about the evil “Marxist Jews,” in fact.

          • gary4205

            Hitler was a SOCIALIST, and only hated Communists, because they were Russian. Even THAT is a misnomer, as the USSR stood for United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic. To the Russians, socialism and communism were interchangeable.

            BTW, Hitler chose red for the Nazi flag to ATTRACT Communists!

            Learn some history, stupid.

          • rjudge

            Hitler and the nazis were “socialists” in name only, ninkcompoop. They were far right wing people, just as many of the teabaggers are today. They were extreme nationalists, just like many of the teabaggers are today. They believed very much in the idea of the Aryan nation and white supremacism, kind of like some on the right do in this country. They were very much against Marxism and the Marxist concept of class struggle, although they were very much in favor of the idea of nation class struggle vs. other nations….in other words, once, again, they were nationalists, thinking that the Germans were the best people in the world, the Master Race, just like some of the teabaggers and far right wingers think of the United States…..oh, yes, we are full of American Exceptionalism.

            Hitler was not against communism because communists were Russian, moron. He hated communism because it advocated for no private property ownership; he hated it because communism advocated for class conflict. In 1930, Hitler said this: “Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”

            Hitler ran on being against the commies in Germany, moron. He did not want to attract commies.

            You people think you are such great history buffs, but you totally distort history. You know nothing about history.

            Learn the proper history of this world, moron. Stop listening to the likes of glen beck!

          • Richard Smit

            they are still far from what the Tea Party stands for! Nazis where against Jews and Christians. and Sarah Palin is a devout christian and a strong supporter of israel!

          • rjudge

            Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Barack Obama is far away from what nazis stood for. Barack Obama does not hate Jews or Christians or homosexuals or others. Barack Obama and his administration have not killed 6 million people; they have not been responsible for the deaths of some 50 to 70 million people, such as was the case in WWII. Barack Obama has not performed heinous and heinous murders and tortures on anyone, as the nazis did.

            But try telling that to many in the tea party or people like glen the insane beck, and they will continue calling Barack Obama a nazi and compare him to Hitler. How many times did beck make the hitler and nazi comparison during his 2 year stint at Faux News? It has been documented that it was close to some 200 times.

            So if these people continue to make such references, then I will keep pointing out how they are much closer to what nazis were than what Barack Obama and his administration are.

          • Richard Smit

            I Never have called obama a Nazi.

          • Richard Smit

            you think it is wrong to compare Obama to hitler! but you liberals did the same thing with Bush!

          • rjudge

            Poor, poor Richard. You and your ilk (teaparty) are so ill-informed; you are quite ignorant.
            To reply to your other message, you may not have called Obama “hitler” or compared him to Nazis, but your ilk does. In fact, glen the idiot beck made a couple of hundred hitler and Nazi comparisons during his 2 year stint at faux news. I’ve heard Limbaugh compare Obama and his administration to Nazis. And, beck and Limbaugh are big fans of sarah palin. sarah palin is a big fan of beck and Limbaugh. sarah palin has spoken at glen beck rallies. Has sarah palin denounced beck for his Nazi comparisons? I don’t think so. In fact, palin has made such comparisons herself, although not as many as beck.
            Getting back to your comment above, yes, people on the left have called bush a Nazi. It is wrong when anyone uses the hitler/Nazi comparison.
            But, sir Richard, can you tell me one single person on the left who has had as much power and influence and listeners and viewers as glen the idiot beck has had? At times, he had as many as 3 million sheep watching his program on faux news a day. And, I repeat, beck made those hitler and Nazi comparisons nearly 200 times. Can you tell me one single liberal radio host or cable TV host who day in, day out, made so many hitler and Nazi comparisons to so many viewers and listeners? No, you cannot.
            If your neighbor used the “n” word (Nazi, or that other one), sure, he would be an ignorant stupid person for doing so, but who would know other than perhaps some of his neighbors or friends? But if someone like glen beck or rush Limbaugh or sarah palin made use of the “n” word, millions of their followers would know, and many of them would feel that they had free reign to use the word themselves.
            The amount of hatred shown towards Obama is absolutely nothing compared to that shoed towards bush. Heck, people on the right, including Limbaugh, have made fun of Michelle Obama. Limbaugh once referred to her as an “angry black woman.” A state senator from I believe Kentucky once said that Michelle was related to a gorilla that had just escaped from a local zoo. Can you tell me one person who made similar racist, bigoted comments against Laura Bush?
            Before Obama was even elected, you had the birthers. They still exist, and one of their most prominent members has been Donald Trump.
            You are making false comparisons, Richard. There is absolutely no comparison between how people have treated Bush with how they continue to treat Obama.

          • Richard Smit

            YOu Liberals shouldnt cry about how hateful we are toward Obama! you Are way more hateful toward Sarah Palin and George W Bush! and Liberals did compared Bush to hitler everytime during protests against Bush!

          • rjudge

            You are incredibly ignorant, Richard smit.
            I watch Bill O’Reilly often. Late last year, a regular guest, Bernie Goldberg, appeared again. O’Reilly asked him if he thought that hatred of Obama was worse than that of bush. He basically said that, yes, it was.
            The hatred shown towards Obama is incredibly more than shown towards bush and palin. And, I want to point out some other things. bush sent people to die in an unjustified war. People died. 4400+ Americans died in Iraq. Tens of thousands of Americans were severely injured, both mentally and physically, many permanently. And lord knows how many other nationalities experienced the same fate due to bush and cheney’s ill-begotten war in Iraq.
            People who hated bush had very good reason to hate him. He sent people off to die. And tea party types hate Obama with far more intensity, over what? Has Obama caused so many people to die and be injured, on the level that bush did?
            palin is a vile and vicious, extremely defensive person. She complains when people bash her, but have you ever seen Obama complain about the vicious and vile hitler and Nazi comparisons people have made of him? Or, have you ever seen him complain about the trash and hate talk people spew about his wife?
            sarah palin can dish it out, but she cannot take it. She is so incredibly defensive. Obama at least is an adult, but ms. palin is not. Her pettiness is sickening.
            And, I never said that liberals did not call bush a Nazi, because, yes, some did. But you apparently have very low comprehension of what is important for this issue. What is important is the fact that the right, the tea party, has had your own “leaders” like beck and palin and Limbaugh make such vile Nazi references over and over and over again. The left has not.

            Open your eyes, Richard smit. There is no comparison between the hatred shown towards Obama vs. that shown towards bush and palin.

          • Richard Smit

            okay, so you are saying that it is only okay when liberals are hateful!

          • rjudge

            Again, Richard, your comprehension is very, very low.
            I did not say what you just said. It is not ok for anyone to use those hitler and Nazi comparisons or be hateful.
            Let me tell you something, Richard. I have been to Dachau probably 5 or 6 times. I have been to Auschwitz once. These have been some of the most sobering experiences of my life, seeing where millions of Jews and others were exterminated by the Nazis. It is wrong when anyone uses the Nazi comparisons.
            But your heroes have used that comparison far more than liberal heroes have. In fact, I don’t know a single liberal leader or talk show host who has used the Nazi comparison like the right has. I really can’t name any coming from the left, although I’m sure you will probably let me know of a leftie who used that Nazi comparison once. I repeat….beck used that comparison day in, day out, a couple of hundred times.

            It is wrong for anyone one to use that comparison just once, but it is incredibly wrong for someone like beck, one of your “leaders”, to use it so many times. By doing so, he greatly trivializes what the Nazis actually did. And, if you cannot understand this, there is no hope for you; it is a reason why the teaparty is so ridiculous.

          • Richard Smit

            You did said that it is okay for liberals to hate Sarah Palin and Bush! and to compare them to hitler! liberals are comparing Sarah Palin and bush to hitler everytime!

          • rjudge

            Smit, you’re so dense. You change the topic; you twist what others say; you lie; you say things which do not make sense. Typical teabagger.

            What does it mean to say that “liberals are comparing sarah palin and bush to hitler ‘everytime!'” “Everytime?” What does that even mean? First of all, “everytime” is not a word, but more importantly, every time what? You would expect something to follow the words “every time.”

            You say “liberals are comparing…..”; that means they are comparing now, at this instance. I haven’t heard or seen any liberal make any hitler or nazi comparison about bush or palin in I don’t know how long. But, I will tell you that I saw republican state senator bob rucho compare Obamacare to acts committed by the nazis just this past December, and he has refused to apologize for that.

            You speak much like one of your leaders, one who often says things which do not make sense; she’s the leader who has trouble putting together a sentence in the English language. She often very badly misuses and mangles the English language. It’s hard to argue with someone like this because one cannot understand what they are saying.

            I did not say it was “okay for liberals to compare them to hitler.” I did not. I said there were good reasons to hate bush because he sent people off to die. Yes, I did say it was not ok to be hateful, but I will now say that I was made a mistake when I said that. Can you ever admit that you have made a mistake?

            People do feel hatred, especially when people like bush cause others to die. People do feel hatred, especially when others make nazi comparisons. It is not wrong to hate something that is hateful in and of itself. Hating Obama because he’s different is not a good reason to hate. Hating Obama because you dislike Obamacare is not a good reason to hate. Hating Obama because he’s trying to help the downtrodden, the poor, the weak is not a good reason to hate. But people like you express that hatred of Obama by calling him hitler and making nazi comparisons. And it’s not just average Joe’s like Richard Smit. It’s your “leaders” like beck, palin, and limbaugh who have made such heinous comparisons.

            Making nazi comparisons is a very hateful act. Your lot likes to make such comparisons, not only individuals like you, but your leaders like beck and palin. They have compared Obama so many times to hitler and nazis, to mao, stalin, and lenin. And, speaking of this, back in 2010, a tea party organization rented a billboard on which they showed a picture of Obama, alongside lenin and hitler. These are your leaders, smit. It is far more wrong when your leaders pull such nonsense as compared to any joe on the street.

            It is wrong to make nazi comparisons, no matter if you are on the left or on the right, unless the person you are making such comparisons of actually committed heinous crimes against humanity as the nazis actually did.

            But, it is not wrong to hate someone for making such nazi comparisons; it is not wrong to hate someone for sending people off to die for no good reason; while I wish people did not hate, these are reasons that make sense to hate people.

            I know I have been very repetitive here, but I just don’t know how much more clear I can make this. You just seem to be so incredibly dense.

          • Richard Smit

            there is also no reason to hate Sarah Palin! and Liberals are the biggest haters!

          • rjudge

            Just another stupid, canned, teabagger response. Tell me, Richard Smit. Oh, yeah, “liberals are the biggest haters!” You’re just repeating the nonsense that comes from people like beck, hannity, and limbaugh. Please give me an example of how liberals are the “biggest haters.” I don’t even think I made the claim that conservatives are the “biggest haters,” but I have given you examples of teabaggin’ “leaders” like glen beck have spread hatred like few others.

            By the way, you like those exclamation points, don’t you?

            I also have to ask: I have heard that sarah palin has an “army” of people who respond to Twitter comments and other comments they do not like about her. Are you part of that “army?”

            There are plenty of reasons to dislike the woman. She is a hypocrite, to start with, in oh so many areas.

            She is a hater herself, and I don’t like haters, nor do others. She hates people who are different than she is. She cannot stand people who think different than she is. She is a great divider. On the campaign trail with McCain, she often referred to the “real America.” Well, if there is a “real America,” then that must mean there is a “not so real America.” What palin means by “real America” are places and people who think like her….rural, far right republican, gun lovers. But, what is so un-American about people who live in cities, who do not like guns, and who are Democrats? Isn’t New York City, this country’s largest city, considered an example of America? It epitomizes America with its great wealth and great variety and diversity of people. But sarah palin chose to divide this country by claiming how much she loves the “real America.” That is just about one of the most divisive things one can say. It divides the “real America” and the “not-so-real America;” in other words, it divides the Democrats and the Republicans.

            I want to say one more thing. I hate George Bush because he took us to an unjust war which killed and injured many people. I could not stand the man, even before he was first elected, because of his grotesque position on the death penalty while governor of Texas. But I will tell you this much, Richard Smit. Even though bush was responsible for the deaths of many, many people, not once, not once I tell you, did I ever call him a nazi or compare him to Hitler.

            The same is true for sarah palin. I cannot stand that woman. She is a hypocrite; she is a hate monger. She has caused so much division in this country. Heck, she used to go around on the campaign trail talking about the “real America.” Do you know how divisive this is? That must mean there is a “not so real America.” What palin means by the “real America” is republican territory, rural areas, areas where people love guns. She is purposely dividing people who think just like her and people who think differently than she does.

            But, as much as I cannot stand this lady, I have not once made hitler and nazi comparisons about her.

            And that’s pretty much the reason our whole conversation started. I take extreme objection to those who compare Obama to nazis and hitler. Many on this thread have done so. Just look at what some people here have said. They adamantly assert that the nazis were “socialists,” in an attempt to tie them to someone else they think is a “socialist” and a “marxist” and any kind of negative “ist” you can think of (Obama).

            Palin has made such comparisons. glenn the insane beck very obviously has done so with his hundreds of such comparisons. I hate people who make these comparisons. It is wrong for the left to make them; it is wrong for the right to make them. But when you have so many of you on the right, especially your “leaders,” then that is something that needs to be called out; it needs to stop; and it is a reason for hating those who continually make such comparisons.

          • Richard Smit

            Sarah Palin has never said anything hateful! its only liberals like you who are hateful toward her and wishing her death everytime! and dont tell me that it is not true becsause i have seen every hatefull Comments toward her on a lot of liberal pages! and liberals do also come to conservative pages to comment on this they dont like! you are doing the same thing now!

          • rjudge

            As I said, smit, sarah palin is a hate monger. I stick by what I said. She hates anyone that thinks differently than she does. I remember several years ago, some 40 religious leaders released a statement in which they condemned the hate speech and bigotry of several people, and that list of people included sarah palin. That statement specifically was referring to the hate speech that palin and others use against Muslims. These religious leaders, many of whom were Christians (didn’t you or someone else here defend palin as being a “devout Christian?”)….these religious leaders specifically were pointing out that people like palin have denigrated the entire religion of Islam because of what a very small minority did, such as on 9-11. That statement called for palin and others to stop using fear mongering and hate filled rhetoric.

            !!! There you go, again, misusing the term “everytime!!!!” !!!!!

            You are so full of lies, richard smit. Please post somewhere on this very thread where I personally wished death upon her. Please do so, because if you do, that will confirm you are a liar because I have never wished death upon anyone, including palin. You did say that “liberals like you (me)……wishing her death every time!!!,” did you not?

            So what if liberals come to conservative pages to comment? Conservatives often do the same thing. I see it very frequently. If conservatives can do so, why can’t liberals?!!!

            !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Richard Smit

            Sarah Palin is a lover and not a hater.

          • rjudge

            Oh, that’s so sweet. Not true, but sweet.

          • rjudge

            By the way, I had also posted a statement by those 40 religious leaders I mention above. In that statement, you can see where those 40 denounce ms. palin’s hate speech (as well as newt gingrich’s hate speech). I don’t see that comment and link any more. Maybe it’s just a temporary glitch, or, perhaps, maybe someone like you somehow deleted it! I can imagine that if you are one of sarah palin’s army, you would not like what that link said about your dear leader because it was signed by 40 religious people of various denominations, including by a number of Christians!

            But, if you would like to see that statement, please google something like “40 religious leaders denounce sarah palin and newt gingrich,” and you should see that statement listed in “faith in public life.” You might find that statement fascinating!

          • rjudge
          • Richard Smit

            sarah Palin has never tried to devide people! she only brings people together!

          • rjudge

            Richard, are you a machine? Are you a robot? !!!!!!

            ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

          • Buck Torre

            WOW ARE YOU A JOKE HOWS YOUR ENTITLEMENTS COMING YOU HOG

          • rjudge

            Hey, Bud.

            Love your all caps. Is your keypad stuck? Or, are you just a nimwit?

            Hey, Bud. Do you know that I have never received any “entitlements?” Never. I guess the only thing you could say that might be close is that I did get low college loans for each of the 4 years I went to a very good university, got an engineering degree, got good grades, and have had a long, satisfying, well paying career. But, Bud, I paid all of those loans back, with interest!

            I have never, ever in my life taken one penny of food stamps, of welfare, of unemployment insurance, even though I am “entitled” to the latter, since I have paid into the system, and even though there have been times when I have been unemployed, in between jobs.

            You know what, Bud? There have been times in my career when I have made 6 figures a year and was easily in the top tax bracket, so I wonder if I am paying for any of your entitlements?

            Bud, you seem to know a lot about me, but you don’t even know me. I think you’d best see a shrink, though, because the crazy, and the anger, runs deep in you. I can tell from your all caps, Bud!

            Have a nice day, Bud, old buddy, old pal!

          • Sargeist

            It’s foolish to assume those service men and women are willing to kill other Americans, especially when many of them are gun owners themselves.

          • Katy

            Many military leaders and personnel have already been fired for saying outright that they wouldn’t turn their weapons on law abiding citizens. The majority of our military are conservative and take their oath to PROTECT citizens seriously. I agree with you 100%.

          • rjudge

            Who knows? Some will take one side; others will take the other.

          • Sporty Broad

            a tyrannical government is what the military took an oath to protect the people from. So, yes, our military would be divided as well. Some would take the orders to kill civilians, others will defend the people against tyranny. It all depends on who takes their oath seriously and what that Soldier/Corpsman/Airman/Marine/Guardsman believes. Notice how the National Guard is getting disbursed of? Cut from the budget, Army being purged by 100,000+. In the meantime, $770 million was given to Cairo, Libya, UAE and Syria to upgrade and restore their mosques. Some had sewer damage, pipe leaks, etc. We, the US taxpayers, paid for their repairs.
            And you also may want to research the open southern border that is allowing thousands of OTM’s in this country. Then look into our power grids and where they are and compare those three grids to the population of mosques in the US.
            If you do not want to look that up, I’ll do it for you. California, New York and Texas.
            This is all a strategic plan coming into place that is making this country unrecognizable. This has nothing to do with the pursuit of happiness or liberty. This has everything to do with a power (with a oppositional following) that has his own ideas as to what America “should be” while he continues to destroy, disobey and thumb his nose at our Constitution. Lock and load…Semper Fi!

          • rjudge

            Oh, boy. The paranoia runs extremely deep in some quarters.

            Yeah, right…..a “strategic plan.” That must have also been a “strategic plan” the days following Obama’s birth when his birth was announced in a Hawaii newspaper…..his mother must have have planned that he would become President one day, so she took that ad out as part of a “strategic plan” in order to prove that her son was actually born in this country when, in fact, he was born in Kenya.

            If that evil Muslim in the White House wants to build an Islamic state here, then why does he continue to use drones to kill Islamic terrorists, a heck of a lot more than his predecessor ever did?

            If “he thumbs his nose at our Constitution,” then why on earth has he not been impeached yet? Why on earth have federal judges, in fact, the Supreme Court, not ruled most of the things he has done as unconstitutional?

            As I said, the paranoia sure as heck runs deep in some quarters.

          • rjudge

            I’d also like to point out that we have long given huge amounts of aid to the places you mention, long before Obama’s administration has. Was Bush part of this master “strategic plan?” Heck, was Reagan even a part of it? Did you know that in 1985, Reagan actually met with some Mujahideen in the White House? Gasp! Extremist Muslims meeting in the White House!!! For what purpose? For Reagan to supply them with weaponry to fight the Soviets who had invaded Afghanistan.

            And, what did those Mujahideen become in time? Well, I imagine you know, but I will tell you. They became the Taliban.

            Reagan started it, you know. He had a strategic plan to get the Mujahideen weapons, knowing that they would eventually become the Taliban who would then sponsor Al Qaeda and bin Laden. I knew there was something wrong with Reagan!

            Oh, and Reagan’s Secretary of Defense, one Donald Rumsfeld, had secret meetings with Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war, and do you know what Donnie Rumsfeld helped to accomplish? Why, that Donnie arranged for Iraq to get chemical weapons!

            Boy, there’s got to be some strategic plan in that, don’t you think?

          • rjudge

            Hey, look at this picture, 2nd one down! Yikes!!! Extremist Muslims in Saint Ronnie’s White House!

            http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html

          • Dale Morgan

            Absolutely. When Good men in those agencies turn and perform their patriotic duties then it most definitely IS possible!

          • gary4205

            Absolutely we can! You forget, when the time comes, many military men and women will be on OUR side.

            When Texas secedes, BTW, we’ll have our OWN cache of nuclear weapons, that most Americans don’t even know about!

        • Katy

          Forcing a law abiding citizen to register their legally obtained firearm falls under the infringement that is stated in the 2nd amendment.

        • Dale Morgan

          You obviously have never studied world history!

        • bobby

          Also, the Supreme Court isn’t clear on this issue at all. Take a look at United States v Miller in 1939. The US Government itself argued this as one of its points “The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.” Militia includes all able bodied men and women between the ages of 17 and 45 as defined in 10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes.

        • John Doeh

          No one here is talking about machine guns or nuclear bombs. The big thing now days seems to be the AR-15. if you take the grip off and paint it a different color and put wood on it, it works just like any other semi auto gun out there. This “Military Type” term Needs to stop being thrown around. Its ridiculous and used by people who do NOT understand what the hell they are talking about. If you don’t get this, you can go play in traffic. Don’t get into arguments about things you do not understand.

        • Buck Torre

          WRONG WRONG YOU CAN OWN MACHINE GUNS TANKS JETS ETC LIBTARD

      • John Doeh

        You speak the truth

    • Katy

      Owning a car is a privilege, not a right. This seems to be a favorite comparison for liberals, and it is not comparable to the right to own a firearm. Nice try, though.

      • Dale Morgan

        I have the right to travel about freely, unlicensed, in my “unregistered” “automobile”. I do not “drive”, nor do I own, a “vehicle” which are commercial terms because I am not engaged in any commercial activity. Study Uniform Commercial Code.

        • gary4205

          Are you being deliberately stupid, or do you actually believe what you wrote?

          • Dale Morgan

            I have studied the Uniform Commercial Code. SInce you can’t comment about that you do what all willingly ignorant fools do and resort to ad hominem attacks. Rest well in your chains.

        • John Doeh

          You are most definitely a nut job.

      • lauren

        Next you’ll tell me that you shouldn’t have to get a permit to protest in a park because that’s a right. Something that is protected by the constitution is not free from regulation. Speech, assembly, religious practice, voting, alcohol sales, and even gun ownership can be regulated and still be rights as you understand them. There is no practical difference between car and gun ownership.

        • Aaron Barr

          You’re right lauren, you absolutely should NOT need a permit to protest anywhere that you would otherwise not be deemed to be trespassing. So if you normally being in a park is not trespassing, then you absolutely have the right to form a protest there. That covers 2 of the freedoms, assembly and speech.

          • lauren

            Well, you do need one. And it is not tyranny or otherwise the end of civilized society for the government to require you to obtain one.

      • lauren

        Also, I am not a liberal. Nice try though.

      • John Doeh

        Owning a car is in no way a privilege. Driving on public roads is. You just made yourself look like an idiot

  • qtdb7

    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.
    – Second Amendment

    Which part of ‘shall NOT be infringed’ don’t they
    (democrats/liberals/socialists/communists and RINOs) understand?

    • Michelle Erb

      Do you belong to a “well regulated militia”? What part of “well regulated” do you not understand?

      • bobby

        So…..what part of “militia” do you not understand? The militia is every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45. Go look this up….10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes. It isn’t just the National Guard…..its people that are ELIGIBLE for the Guard that are militia as well…..

      • Kenneth Slocum

        It is the right of every free state to maintain a well regulated militia. Ahh, but then comes the “comma” where it is the right5 of the people to keep and bear arms. Gee guess that comma does not mean a thing but to “separate ” the sentence into 2 parts. Since the “comma” is place so strategically it separates the two making a distinction between the militia and the people. A militia has age limits and the people do not. And no i do not belong to a “well regulated militia”, but i am a people, thank you.

      • gary4205

        ALL men, and women, who are NOT members of the military, are considered members of the militia, have been since our nation’s founding.

        Oh, and MORON, in the 18th Century the term “well regulated’ simply meant well equipped, or well trained.

        Learn some history, stupid.

        Our GOD GIVEN RIGHT is GUARANTEED by the Constitution, and our RIGHT to bear arms is to keep GOVERNMENT at bay.

        As Thomas Jefferson said:

        “When the people fear government, there is tyranny, but when the government fears THE PEOPLE, there is Liberty!”

        • Michelle Erb

          So you want to conside the founders intentions and the court’s interpretation of “well regulated” but you ignore both when it comes to the “not be infringed part.? The courts, including very conservative justices, are clear that the founders were talking about the right to own basic arms, not every type of modern weaponry you can conceive. Moreover setting reasonable regulations including limiting where you can carry your weapons does not infringe on the general right to bear arms..

          • Buck Torre

            WRONG YOUR LIBERAL INTERPRETATION SUX

      • 56Survivor

        Learn your history before making a fool of yourself. What a dumb comment.

      • Buck Torre

        look up militia LIBERAL MICHELLE

  • Katy

    I thought that you bleeding heart liberals were against profiling. I guess that’s only when it’s convenient for you. I’m glad I was homeschooled because I actually was able to learn at my own pace and pass my SAT and ACT in the 97th percentile. You, however, seem to be uneducated about the Constitution and history in general.

  • JacobBe5

    So somewhere between between 15-50% of the firearm owners in question did actually register, but you think this is “no one did it”.

    You are horrible at math.

  • gary4205

    Quinnipiac University, NOT a Conservative university by any stretch of the imagination, just finished a 29 year study. The findings? Concealed carry PREVENTS murders.

    Since more and more states have enacted COMMON SENSE concealed carry laws, the murder rates have gone way down, as has ALL violent crime. The study ties this DIRECTLY to people bearing arms.

  • gary4205

    AUSTRALIA banned guns, and violent crime SKYROCKETED

    AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

    It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 —
    five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of
    Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and
    the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders
    committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3
    percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

    Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges
    that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of
    gun-involved crime:

    In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

    Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.

    Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

    Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

    Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.

    During the same time period, all other violent crime indices
    increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2
    percent.

    Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.

    Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

    At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape
    dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault
    dropped 32.2 percent.

    Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

    While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it
    does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this
    highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy
    regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them,
    says the Examiner.

    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847

    • karlec

      Really Vbnh? Why don’t you read some unbiased articles from unbiased media outlets? ABC? Washington Post?? Goodness…

  • Richard Smit

    Sarah Palin is a wonderful person!! and she is never wrong!

    • Michelle Erb

      I was pretty convinced when he said Bristol is a great dancer.

  • Srenia Ia

    Ever wonder why there was a sex registry? Now you know. Sex registry hasn’t stopped one crime since implemented. So why do we have it? Having worked in the field you must understand every moral discussion you give an a morale government is fundamentally flawed. The government doesn’t have morals so why have it make moral decision? Its insane.

  • tim prater

    Of course, I voted for McCain Palin. It was the best choice at the time. McCain, as bad as he is, is still better than Oblama. Palin was a wonderful leader but she did the wrong thing by endorsing McCain. We needed the other guy to replace McCain. Even though Hayworth was flawed, he was 100% better than McCain, and we needed to replace McCain with a conservative. Palin played old fashioned politics and supported McCain like paying a debt. She should have done the right thing and said nothing. She went out of her way to help McCain, and it has resulted the death of Americans by illegal aliens.

  • http://www.theamericanpaladin.com Sam
  • pwrserge

    Again, please tell me more about your data gathering process. Did you just suck the dicks of the guys with big trucks, or did you let their buddies run a train on you?

  • famouswolf

    A short message to all you liberal geniuses that want to restrict my natural god given right to whatever weapons I want and need to make yourselves feel like you own the high moral ground…come and take them, and come ready to do violence, because that is the only way you get your lemming death wish. Any time, any place. You got it to do. No more trying to reason with you.
    That’s all I have to say to you. My next message will be much more loud and effective…I promise.
    A note about the Palins…they are me. I consider them family, although I don’t know them personally and will never meet them. I will ALWAYS defend family with immediate deadly force. Just so you know. If I were you I would be more cautious about just who I mouthed off to with vicious, unjustified slander.

    • bobby

      Wolf…..you’re not helping the situation at all. You just made it worse. Yes….you do have a God given right to protect you and yours. The right to do so with a firearm, however, is granted by the Constitution. People like you…..are the reason that level headed, rational gun owners start to look like absolute nutbags. You don’t jump into a conversation and threaten people with death who have a different point of view. Try thinking out a response. Emotion is your enemy in any rational conversation.

      • Bill589

        You are wrong bobby. It’s a natural right to be able to defend your life, liberty, and property.

        People like you, are the reason statists/progressives look like absolute nutbags. You don’t jump into a conversation and threaten people with lies who have a truthful point of view. Try thinking out a response. Reasoning is your enemy in any of your statist arguments..

        • bobby

          How am I a statist? I didn’t say it wasn’t a natural right to protect yourself…..I said that the Constitution gives you the right to do that with a firearm. Last time I checked….guns don’t grow on trees or sprout out of the ground, meaning that they really aren’t included in that whole “natural right” you are talking about. I am far from progressive….I just recognize the amount of harm that flying off and threatening to kill someone who opposes your views can do to the subject at hand. I love my guns, and I love my family…..I will defend both with whatever force I deem necessary and is allowable under the law of where I live. Feel free to keep adding fuel to the anti-gun fire though. A product of NRA brainwashing at its finest….

          • Bill589

            Wrong bobby. Ask your parents to help you with your research, else you end up bearing false witness.

            Btw, we are born with our rights. They are ‘natural’ rights. The Constitution does NOT give us rights – it limits the ‘rights’ of government.

          • Buck Torre

            Really what part of inalienable rights did you miss

          • Bill589

            I missed nothing. Inalienable rights are our natural rights – we’re born with them. Read what the founders wrote about this.

      • famouswolf

        The hell you say.
        ‘Buck up or get out of the truck’.

      • rjudge

        I agree with what you say, Bobby. The first rational thing I have seen you say.

    • Bill589

      I control my guns just fine. I don’t need any help from the government.

      • Bill589

        Maybe some do, but not from our liberty’s biggest threat – our corrupt government.

    • famouswolf

      Bring it on, little lemming. Either way, fine by me.

      • Bill589

        Then why are you acting scared? You want government to regulate good people’s weapons?

  • bpr

    There are three types of lies in this world. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. That being said, do not forget the reason behind the 2nd Amendment. The fact that I am carrying (and I am) reduces the chance that me or my family will be accosted by some criminal is just a by-product of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. It is there to give US THE PEOPLE some protections against a tyrannical government. So please, go read the Constitution…I bet you will be surprised at the rights WE THE PEOPLE actually have…and I guarantee that our Federal Government does not want us to realize that we have the power not them,because then they might actually have to work for us. It is so easy to see through what they do…both sides…democrat and republican, they are just different sides of the same hairy arse!

    • bpr

      and owning a car increases the chances of you being in a motor vehicle accident..duh. Regardless, the 2nd Amendment is there to protect against tyranny. It is simple history which many schools apparently do not spend much time on anymore.
      And thanks for letting me know how a democracy works. Maybe you should check out how a republic works.

      • Bill589

        Vbnh – do you see how bpr argues with facts and reasoning – and you don’t?

        • bpr

          it is called a red herring argument. Next he will either say I get my ‘facts’ from fox news (which I do not even have cable/satellite, but choose to do my own research instead of listening to one side or the other skew the statistics to prove their point) or he will attack my character with an ad hominem attack.

        • 19greg45

          Facts don’t matter to the anti’s.

      • bpr

        It was I that brought up the car analogy not Bill. But the argument is still valid. And within all those gun death statistics that people love to fall back on…especially the ones about school shootings…they include gang on gang shootings, gang shootings on school grounds…even those that happen at 2am. Do they remove the gun suicides from those same statistics? No. They just throw them out there and people jump on them, because, to quote one of my favorite authors, “People are stupid. They will believe a lie because they want to believe
        it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true.”
        ―Terry Goodkind, Wizard’s First Rule

        • bpr

          I am sorry you cannot see the logic in my analogy, so I will not bring it up again. But I will say that you are still missing the entire point of my original post. The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect us from being ruled by a tyrant. That was the whole point of it. But I guess we can just give up all our means of protection and in 10-20 years we can be like that poor lone soul facing down a tank in Tienanmen Square.

          • bpr

            Yet another red herring argument. In case you are unaware of what that is… it is an attempt to divert a discussion away from the issue at hand and lead it to another topic in order to win an argument. I never said anything about fear of our government. I said the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the citizens of the United States of America from a tyrannical government. You have failed to address this in all of your replies. If that is not what the 2nd A is for, then please enlighten me as to what its original intent was. Can you do that without changing the direction of the topic or trying to put words in my mouth?

          • bpr

            Well, I guess you are correct Vbnh. But not about me being fearful. Our founding fathers were fearful of a government gotten too big. Orwell was afraid of Big Brother (rightly so). And a fear that was even more grounded in the truth was the one that Adolphus Huxley wrote about in A Brave New World.
            But can you please stop stalling and explain to me the meaning and purpose behind the 2nd Amendment?

          • bpr

            No, what you are smelling is your own apathy and your refusal to state what the 2nd amendment was written for. But I digress, I can see you are simply trolling because you must be bored out of your mind. have a good evening.

          • bpr

            Ok, I will reply to your question…even though you refuse to do me the same honor. I am not fearful of my government. Our government is there to be a tool, not a means to an end. How can I explain that I am not fearful of our government? Am a worried that our government it too big? heck ya I am. Am I concerned that our government is overly corrupt? You bet. Am I worried that we will lose many of our liberties? Yes sir, I am. I fought for this country for many years in uniform. I took an oath when I enlisted to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. Do you think the author of that oath was fearful of the government? I do not. I think the author was fearful of a time when that might be the case. Which is what truly scares me. So maybe I do harbor some fear of the government that we now have. Is that so wrong? Is it so wrong to demand from our government that they uphold the very same Constitution (that they took swore to do when they took their oath of office)? Is it wrong for us Americans to demand that from them?
            Now, why do you think the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified into our Constitution?

          • bpr

            Wow, just wow. No more feeding the trolls. Bye now.

          • Sargeist

            You’re either a troll or a complete idiot. No more talking to you reasonably because you are simply not worthy. You are the most vocal, but also the most ignorant.. You cannot compensate for intellectual insufficiency. bpr just destroyed you and your argument, so you ignore him. You’re a moron through and through.

          • David Moore

            Well , I for one am scared of what my government has become and is becoming, you sir need to wake the hell up,

          • Richard Smit

            Sarah is against the control of corporations and the wealthy in our political system!

          • Richard Smit

            No She has nothing to do with the koch Brothers. and the Koch Brothers are not even Conservatives

          • 19greg45

            Fear of government is well founded, especially during the last 5 years. The government is supposed to fear THE PEOPLE, as is the Founders original intent, not the opposite. They knew in their hearts, and correctly so, that the bigger government gets, the more oppressive it becomes. We are seeing it happen every day, from IRS audits of conservative political groups in order to silence them, to gun control, to onerous environmental regulations in support of junk science, just to name a few. If you don’t fear the government, it’s because you simply are not paying attention and depending on the DNC controlled alphabet network talking bobble-heads to spew what passes for the news.

        • Sargeist

          Yeah, so lets ignore the rest of his comment that makes sense.

        • 19greg45

          Go to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics and the National Safety Council ( you can google them both) and look up the stats on firearms deaths. Or are you afraid of THE TRUTH, and having your little liberal anti-gun propaganda bubble burst, like some others of your ilk that I have helped to educate?

      • 19greg45

        There’s plenty of people who have been killed by drunk drivers and those who drive while texting or talking on the phone, but I don’t see liberals pressing for the elimination of automobiles or cell phones either,

        • 19greg45

          Guns serve a purpose other than killing too bub. They serve the purpose of protecting, and can do so without ever firing a shot.

          • Sargeist

            Wasting our breath. Read the rest of this idiots comments and you’ll realize that fairly quickly.

      • Sargeist

        That was ridiculous and made no sense. Nice.

        • Sargeist

          Moron or troll, either way, be gone.

          • Sargeist

            You’ve earned being called a moron. Everybody commenting against you has more likes. That means something. Means you’re a moron.

          • SarahNugent

            And you’ve earned being called a racist phuck teaturd. Because that’s what you are. Hide your comments you racist prick.

    • Tom Polk

      Did you complain about the tyrannical government when J. Edgar Hoover was going after “liberals”?

      • Bill589

        Well that is a good argument to give control of our personal defense to our government and throw away our liberty. /s

      • bpr

        Actually Tom, I did…from the WOMB. And thanks for the red herring btw.

    • Bill589

      Vbnh – No. You are wrong. Liar or ignorant? – it’s your responsibility to research to be sure you are telling the truth.

      I hope you’re not bearing false witness on purpose – that would be the worst.

      • Bill589

        Actually, you’re wrong. I’m not sure you’re are a liar, but you are not telling the truth.

    • 19greg45

      Your first paragraph must have been plagiarized from either the Violence Policy Center’s or Brady Campaign’s fictional talking points. There are many sources of statistics that give the lie to their false claims, such a the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Safety Council, just to name a couple.
      And secondly, the US is not a democracy; it’s still a constitutional republic as established by the framers of the Constitution, and no thanks to liberal democrats for that. Democracy is nothing but mob rule where the rights of those who are unforntunate enough to be in the minority do not matter and might as well not exist. If you don’t like our republic, move to Canada or the UK. Both democracies and neither of which has a Constitution like ours where the rights of the individual are protected.

      • Sargeist

        He said “a Constitution like ours”. Kind of hard to miss.

        • 19greg45

          Thank you! And Canada’s constitution hasn’t stopped their wrong-headed mush-brained liberals from trying to disarm their citizenry either. Matter of fact, the Canadians refused to comply with their gun registration law, much as Connecticuters are doing now, and as I recall, they won!

          • Sargeist

            Canada has around thirty-five million people. The United States has around three hundred and twenty million. Around eighty million of them are gun owners. Think about that.

    • Sargeist

      And the fact that you may drive a car severely increases the chances you will be in a car wreck.
      The fact that you swim in the summer increases the chances you will drown.
      The fact that there is a knife in your house increases the chances that you or your family may be injured in some way by that knife. The fact that you eat food every day increases the chances that you may choke on it.
      The fact that you walk up or down a flight of stairs increases the chances of falling on/down those stairs and injuring yourself.
      See the significance and logic behind your point yet? Obviously the chances MAY increase if it’s there. They can’t very well increase if it’s not there. The chances of him and his family successfully defending themselves from somebody wishing to do them harm is exponentially increased. Far more than the chances of him or his family being shot by their own gun. I think I’d be willing to take that chance.

      • Sargeist

        It is a means to SELF DEFENSE. It happens successfully EVERY SINGLE DAY. What chances do you have of defending yourself against somebody who is armed IF YOU ARE UNARMED???? Simple concept that has been working for the last 238 years. You have been dancing around these simple facts since this started.
        So if my damn gun is sitting by my side and somebody breaks into my house, my gun in some bizarre way, is more likely to be used against me? If I was a gun control proponent, and I saw your comments, I’d tell you to bug off because you are destroying your position.

        • Sargeist

          I’ve been trying to spell stuff out for you for the last hour or so, but no matter how simple I make it, you still can’t seem to understand. Notice how so many people are disagreeing with you? That means something: means you’re an unreasonable idiot. When it comes to guns and their use, you are ignorant. You are spouting junk you read on another pro gun control site. You aren’t actually capable of thinking for yourself, but you couldn’t anyways because I doubt you actually have any real world experience. You are a lost cause.

    • David Moore

      There has been a gun in my home now going on 35 years,no deaths ,no injuries, when cops take minutes to get there and you only have seconds to defend your family it will be there and hopefully i never have to use it ,if you chose not to own one that is your right but don’t try to take my rights away because you don’t like guns ,ps there are over 300.000.000(million) guns in this country, so how can you say majority ,this includes Dems, and Repubs, ,you seem intelligent,do the math,don’t let the media control your thoughts

    • Steve Kumm

      I own a car and that increases the chance that I will die in an auto accident….get real, the US is NOT a democracy, it’s a Constitutional Republic so that a majority could not dictate to the minority.

  • Bill589

    Thank you Bristol for the courage to stand up for our country.

    ‘The duty of a patriot is to protect her country from it’s government.’

    The anti-gun trolls here may not care if they or their children become enslaved and hopelessly poor. I’m an American, so I choose liberty, and the prosperity liberty-loving capitalism has proven to create. With the sure hope, that everyone has a chance to better their lot in life.

  • Bill589

    “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” – Samuel Adams

  • Bill589

    “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors; they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle or to be cheated out of them by the artifices on false and designing men.” ~ Samuel Adams

    • bpr

      He makes a good beer too. C’mon, I know someone else was thinking it too.

  • Bill589

    “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” – George Washington

    • Sargeist

      Doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. A bad guy is less likely to act if he thinks his target is armed, or those around him are armed.

      • Sargeist

        Another idiot comment. Go hide in a corner already. You are doing an absolute disservice to gun control proponents everywhere.

        • Sargeist

          No moron, there are many, many reasons why we have higher gun violence rates than other countries. There are more gun owners in the United States than there are people in the ENTIRE United Kingdom. If it was actually that bad then the numbers would be considerably higher, and I’m not talking about your BS distorted numbers you keep throwing out that also include suicides and law enforcement’s use of firearms. The UK has less gun violence, but more violence per capita in general, and with a much smaller population. Criminals are emboldened by the fact that their victims are unarmed. Common sense.

          • Sargeist

            You dancing around valid points again. Like I said, you’ve earned being called a moron.

          • SarahNugent

            Coming from a racist phuck like you, that’s a compliment.

          • Sargeist

            This entire debate isn’t about race and has nothing to do with race. And racist against who, actually, idiot? Not that I have to explain a damn thing to you, but I guess it makes absolutely no difference that I have friends that are not white, and associate with people that are not white, especially considering I grew up in the East. St. Louis area. And using “ph” instead of “f” doesn’t make it any less vulgar.
            And even if I was racist, it would be completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Just the fact that you’re throwing race around is absolutely pathetic in and of itself.
            Jesus, you can never stoop too low.

      • David Moore

        check out FBI statistics before you spout lies ,go ahead ,we will wait … or do you need the link, i’am sure we can find it

        • bpr

          He won’t look it up. He is simply a tool and is incapable of thinking for him/herself.

  • rkb100100

    Dan Malloy is having facial recognition software run on all those pictures. Those guys will be in some gulag after Hillary makes him Gun czar.

  • silverdutchman

    There is only one reason for the 2nd Amendment and that is to protect the citizenry from tyranny by an overbearing government much like we have now. There seems to be a few libturd (shit for brains) demoPUKEs on here that are serving as “useful idiots” for the demoPUKE Party – the new Communist Party of the U.S.

    • Longbowgun

      I guess you’re forgetting the first half of the 2nd Amendment…

      • silverdutchman

        No, I don’t believe I am forgetting the 1st half unless you are one of those whack jobs that mistakenly believes that the 2nd amend only applies to militia or the national guard or some other governmental force.

        • Longbowgun

          If you really believe that our government is tyrannical mount an armed insurrection and replace it… unless you have a list of grievances you can present.
          BTW, you really should learn the difference between Democratic Socialism, Communism and Fascism.

          • Jason Peltier

            I have some homework for you, too.

            Look up ‘constitutional republic’.

      • Jason Peltier

        I prefer the 3rd draft of the amendment, before it was split into the 2nd and others. It was divided so each one could be voted on independently.

        “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

  • Richard Smit

    THanks Bristol ! for banning all the Palin haters from your blog!

    • SarahNugent

      Says the top palin crotch sniffer!

      • Jason Peltier

        Why?
        Why is it every time, you can clearly see the bleeding heart liberal because they resort to vulgar name calling?

  • Douglas Moore

    The photo in the article is a couple of years old but it does go with the sentiment. I agree. DO NOT COMPLY WITH THESE TYRANTS!!! WHEN THEY COME TO GET THEM, THAT’S THE TIME TO USE THEM.

  • zionfire12

    We can’t just remember the Revolutionists,..we must stand with them.

  • Steve Calandra
  • http://www.jlptalk.com James Anton Hake

    RIGHT ON, Bristol Palin! Thanks for sharing!

  • Michelle Erb

    So there was not an actual protest? That is an old picture?

    • Asillem4

      I understand it was a quiet act of civil disobedience and the state has no plans to punish the (formerly law abiding) citizen gun owners.