17 Oct

In the debate last night he actually said it.  Surprised me a little but maybe the President let a little of the real Obama slip.

But before I get to the weapons ban that President Obama supports let me get to what he believes the Second Amendment  protects.

Obama: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

The Second Amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING.  The idea of needing to protect hunting back in the 1700’s was about as valued as the need to enumerate the right to breathing.  It was such a part of life that it would be unheard of to deny it to people since many outside of cities needed it to live.

No, Mr. President, though you merely gave it lip service, you were closer to the mark on the last bit.  The Second Amendment is about the people protecting themselves.  Now, while in the simplest terms that is to protect ones self, family and property it broadens out once you look at from whom the people need protection.

Yes, more often firearms are used to stop a burglar, mugger, or nutjob who wants to do us harm directly, but even then, that is not the extent of what the Founders intended for the Second Amendment.

The Founders enumerated the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a defense against tyranny from overreaching and oppressive governments.  Basically, the 2nd Amendment is the peoples protection against you.

It is the last line of defense against would be despots who would force the people to submit their freedom and liberty to appease a tyrant.

From our Founding Fathers:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” -Noah Webster

“…Arms discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace.” -Thomas Paine

“…What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify is a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure….” -Thomas Jefferson

Of course, Mr. Obama, the manure I worry about is the kind you were shoveling last night about how the free people of the United States do not “need” semi automatic rifles.

I share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. -Obama

Interesting.  I hear gun control zealots all the time saying how the Founding Fathers only knew muskets and that that is all the 2nd Amendment should protect.  That is like saying they only had horses to travel with so even while allowing for invention, cars shouldn’t be allowed to go over 25 miles per hour.

No, Mr. Obama, the weapons have evolved and since the 2nd Amendment is to protect against tyranny then by all means and rights  the American People should and ought to have access to weapons that would keep any dictator who sat in the Oval Office at bay.

Do I need a machine gun to go duck hunting?  Nope.  Do I need it to help as a deterrent from some megalomaniac who would seek to grind me and my liberty under heel?  You bet your life I do.

Because THAT is what the Second Amendment is about.  Freedom.  Liberty.  And the protection of them both.  Saying its about Hunting is like saying Voting is about getting a free cookie at the election hall.  It’s an added bonus but really has nothing to do with the right.

So where do you stand? Apparently you don’t believe in freedom.  You finally let your inner Chicago out.

 I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. – Obama

So, to reduce violence, brought on by a few, you would strip the liberty of the many?  Another Founding Father had a thought about that:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”Benjamin Franklin 

But Liberty is, and will always be, the bane of tyranny.  Gun Control is about control and Mr. Obama, you have revealed your hand.

You want to point to Aurora, CO?  I point to Tiannemon Square, Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, the Great Purge, and slavery.

Those are examples of what a Government can do to an unarmed populace.  May your future for America never come to pass Mr. Obama, for it walks the same lines and will lead to the same results.


Posted by on October 17, 2012 in Uncategorized



  1. Billy

    October 17, 2012 at 10:39 am

    “So, to reduce violence, brought on by a few, you would strip the liberty of the many?”

    This applies to so many places. great quote. TSA, guns, you name it.

    • Tony Oliva

      October 17, 2012 at 10:48 am

      Thanks Billy. I was feeling kind of inspired. I thought Obama would just keep shucking and jiving his way to November and not talk about any gun control. Even though he views gun owners with disdain and that to him all we do is cling to our bibles and guns, I thought he would play it closer to the vest. I have people on the GOA facebook page STILL defending him that he doesn’t want to ban guns.

      But you’re right. Patriot Act, Real ID, TSA, Gun Control etc. they are all small steps towards liberty lost.

    • Jo'

      October 23, 2012 at 9:11 am

      Have you gone to your local/state news channels, restaurants, businesses and whatever websites and educated others about 3rd Party candidates? Share the info on tonight debate!!!

      There are other candidates that the media won’t allow YOU to know about.

      C-SPAN Third Party Presidential Candidates Debate
      Oct 23, 2012 at 9:00 PM

      former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party
      Jill Stein, Green Party
      Virgil Goode, Constitution Party
      Rocky Anderson, Justice Party

  2. johngalt

    October 17, 2012 at 10:45 am

    Reblogged this on YouViewed/Editorial and commented:
    A great post . Having not watched the debate I can’t comment on what Wile E actually said , but does anyone harbor any doubts as to the ultimate goal of ALL STATISTS ? In order to completely implement their plans the people must first be deprived of the means to object . Firearms , Speech , Assembly , Property . Tell me which , if any , of these rights are not currently under fire from the left .

    • Tony Oliva

      October 17, 2012 at 10:53 am

      Great point John. It’s a constant battle to maintain our freedom and when it is lost, even if only a little bit, it is often difficult if not impossible to get it back.

      As for the debate, if you want to read the part of the transcript where the assault weapons ban came up you can go here:

      It starts near the top.

      • johngalt

        October 17, 2012 at 2:17 pm

        Thanks for the compliment and the link Tony . I enjoy your posts very much and please understand that my turn of phrase in no way was meant to express any doubt about the veracity of your claim… only to point out my own ignorance in the matter .

    • Mark M. Young

      October 17, 2012 at 12:41 pm

      It’s not just “the left” anymore. “The right” is just as guilty of trampling upon our rights and the constitution as any. The “PATRIOT” Act, DHS, TSA, NDAA were all “bipartisan” efforts. BTW, of the two candidates debating last night only one has actually signed an assault weapons ban into law and it wasn’t Obama.

      • johngalt

        October 17, 2012 at 2:13 pm

        Thanks Mark , I agree , ” ALL STATISTS” are after our rights and that includes both sides of the aisle . That is why I refered to them as such .
        As for the left , I , since the original post was refering to Obama I made his side the focus of the query . That was by no means to exclude Romney and the rest of the “establishment” right from blame .
        Their motives are just as foul as the left’s . Gary Johnson is my prefered candidate and i will most likely vote for him as a matter of principle , but I can get away with it as my state is the ‘ Bluest of Blue” and is unlikely to turn red in my lifetime .
        That shouldn’t preclude me from recognizing that our only real chance of ridding ourselves of the stain to our history that the Obama years represent is to support Mitt Romney .
        It really is a choice of the lesser of two evils .

      • GeeOhPeeved

        October 18, 2012 at 2:33 pm

        Oh, no worries, it’s still just the left. The ever increasing number of liberals running as Republicans IS getting a bit wearing, though… I hope we get to a point where a third party can be viable, as conservatives everywhere are getting tired of the “moderate” (read: liberal) republican establishment.

        All that being the case, Romney is no conservative’s ideal candidate. He’s a hell of a lot better than the alternative of allowing Obama another four years, though.

  3. Randy kirkpatrick

    October 17, 2012 at 11:11 am

    The 2 nd amendment is Not about needs !!!! It’s about RIGHTS, U DUMBSHIT , IF EVER READ THE THE CONSTITUTION INSTEAD OF TRAMPING ON IT YOU WOULD KNOW THAT! Hope you’re looking for a new job I HEAR KENYA. WILL TAKE YOU BACK. NEED A TICKET??

    • Tony Oliva

      October 17, 2012 at 11:28 am

      It took a second to realize you were addressing Obama and not me. hahaha

    • addictedtodrugs

      October 20, 2012 at 8:56 pm

      Hi Randy.

      Most people reading this think you are addressing someone here. Maybe you are, then tell us. Is it to Obama, kind of, but not really to Obama: It’s to all the people reading this blog. Why would you do that? Acceptance is a valid answer. Not so much courage, Mr. Kirkpatrick. Hope you answer later, calculator 😉

  4. Bob Mc

    October 17, 2012 at 11:31 am

    “I hear gun control zealots all the time saying how the Founding Fathers only knew muskets and that that is all the 2nd Amendment should protect”.

    I wonder why we never hear those who would use the “technology” argument to eviscerate the 2nd amendment apply the same logic against the 1st?

    After all the, the pen is mightier than the sword, and the ability to disseminate propaganda to millions in milliseconds poses a far bigger threat than a manual printing press and a few pamphlets ever did.

    The founders communicated with quill pens and parchment, how could they have possibly intended the first amendment to protect mass communication through satellites, television or the internet?

    • Tony Oliva

      October 17, 2012 at 11:36 am

      That’s a great point Bob. One I have used against a gun grabbing zealot before. They basically stammer about, mumble about things being different and then blurt out something inane like “for the children”.

      Basically they have no recourse against the argument that the first amendment shouldn’t apply to computers, tv, radio or anything else that wasn’t around in the 1700’s even while hypocritically demanding that standard be applied to firearms.

    • Bob Mc

      October 17, 2012 at 11:37 am

      The answer of course is that it is the principle of free speech that is protected by the 1st Amendment, regardless of how the means to achieve that end evolves over time.

      The same is true of the 2nd, the principle of self defense is what is protected, regardless of how the means to achieve such evolves.

  5. Hardy Macia

    October 17, 2012 at 11:46 am

    While Obama says he wants to ban them, Governor Romney actually banned them and Mitt raised gun permit fees by 400%.

    Gary Johnson is the only choice for gun owners. Johnson vetoed trigger lock legislation and then signed into law conceal carry legislation.

  6. majesticaltruth

    October 17, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Reblogged on my blog. I’m averaging 50 hits a day all over the world. Feel free to check us out. Great reminder about our 2nd amendment.

    • Tony Oliva

      October 17, 2012 at 12:58 pm

      Thanks for the reblog majestic, but if you could just somehow illustrate that the article is in fact reblogged from here or give a link back in case people want to read my other posts that would be greatly appreciated.

      • majesticaltruth

        October 17, 2012 at 1:06 pm


  7. Brandon Crawley

    October 17, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Well spoken, sir. Barry has no idea what it is he wants to control, just what he wants to get by controlling it.

  8. TomT

    October 17, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    Brandon, I must disagree with you on one point. BHO DOES know what he wants to control: Everything. He wants control over what we say, drive, eat (sorry, that’s his wife) and anything else that our freedoms provide. In November, he has to be shown the door of OUR Whitehouse and sent packing.

    • Brandon Crawley

      October 17, 2012 at 3:12 pm

      Although, Im not mad at momma for wanting us to eat healthier… At least on them has a respectable priority… He’s like the playground bully. I would tell him the same as I would tell the kid trying to take my lunch, “Go ahead, try and take it big un'”

      • Brandon Crawley

        October 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm

        Not that I have to… lol I havent used that line in some years! But I gladly will again.

  9. addictedtodrugs

    October 17, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    I don’t get this. You want the “freedom” to carry guns? How is that freedom? Explain please.

    • Tony Oliva

      October 18, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      It is our right to defend ourselves from danger and from tyranny. If we are denied that right then we are extensibly denied all rights. If we cannot fight back then it is only by whim we are granted the ability to exercise any other right at all.

    • bec

      October 25, 2012 at 11:41 pm

      We have a constitutional right that was preordainded by our fathers and our constitution. Our Second Amendment right states that we have the right to bear arms. That is not only a freedom but a right and a constitutional obligation. Please look into your rights. We all have the freedom to carry guns and we all should…if we are intelligent enought to understand the purpose.

    • GeeOhPeeved

      October 26, 2012 at 2:25 pm

      A) It’s a protected right thanks to our constitution, B) It ensures our ability to protect our rights, both against those “maniacs” you reference in your other comment, and from potential government tyranny.

  10. Brett

    October 18, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    So, how about Romney’s record on guns? Is the flip flopper going to flop again on guns, once he gets elected? I’m sick of the 2 party viper!

    • Tony Oliva

      October 18, 2012 at 2:08 pm

      Whoever is elected president on Nov. 6th it is imperative that we send the most pro gun congress to Washington. If Obama is re-elected, a pro gun Congress can limit the damage that he and his gun control agenda would inflict and if it’s Romney, the pro gun congress can sway him from any gun control notion and influence him toward signing things like the National Reciprocity Bill and others.

      Neither are ideal but with one you are fighting to stop, the other you are fighting to get going.

  11. addictedtodrugs

    October 18, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    So maniacs carrying weapons is freedom for you. Is it really safer if everybody has weapons? Cold wars are freedom? You are so wrong, but I know you are scared. So you think freedom is to arm yourself so you can cope with your fear. You feel safer with a gun, because you are afraid without. Grow some balls instead.

    • Tony Oliva

      October 18, 2012 at 3:58 pm

      (grins) I see what you’re doing there. Rhetoric 101, marginalize your opposition by citing them as outside of the norm or that their viewpoint is based on irrationality. So you try to make me and those who believe as I do as some irrational paranoid kooks. And that anyone who would want to carry a weapon for their own self preservation as a maniac. Unfortunately for you, i’m not going to take your petty childlike taunts and degrade myself by arguing with you.

      I’m also not going to delete your post like so many gun control sites would because by leaving it up others can read how the best anti gunners can come up with to argue a point is to name call and whine.

      You never wanted an explanation, you just wanted a foil for your little hispter rant against guns. That’s fine. You’re the big guy who mocked people who are willing to stand up for something. Grow some balls? Indeed

      • addictedtodrugs

        October 18, 2012 at 6:30 pm

        Good, Tony. Love that you don’t delete my view. It probably means that you wan’t this world to be a better one.

        I would love an explanation and sorry for being rude. I’m not saying that you are maniacs, but in every society there are maniacs, or psychiatric cases to more correct, and with a gun they can kill everyone close enough, even armed people.

        I’ll explain my background.

        I live in country were the police don’t wear guns, unless in some rare cases. You don’t get shot as long as you’re not criminal.

        Last year Anders Behring Breivik shot and killed around 70 innocent people. The police took him alive. After this tragedy the police had an internal canvass asking the officers if they felt unsafe , but almost everybody answered that more police with guns are more dangerous for the society, period.

        In new York this summer the police attempted to take down one man who I think had killed his boss. Nine innocent people got injured in the shoot out. All of them was hit by bullets or fragments of bullets shot by the police.

        In the army we wore a gun all the time, and I tried a dozen different ones. I just don’t care about it. I think it’s boring, and the one with the biggest gun wins.

        A fist fight is more fair.

        If I feel unsafe enough (like if somebody threatened to kill me), I’ll get a gun, even if it’s not legal. Or maybe I’ll move to another place were I feel safe.

        Yippee ki-ay, motherfuckers 😉

    • bec

      October 25, 2012 at 11:49 pm

      Why dont you grow some balls and carry a weapon? There is one thing you can depend on…the bad guys are gonna have weapons and they do not care about using them…even on wake up and you need to grow a set and fight for your country! Get a weapon and prepare to use it if need be to protect yourself or your family. If you choose not to do that…I hope your balls can deflect the bullets that come from those who don’t give a damn about you or your family…and don’t count on Obama to take care of that for you.

      • addictedtodrugs

        October 29, 2012 at 2:43 pm

        I carried a weapon for a year in the army. I’ve tried AKs, 12.7, AG, Cloks, MP5, M16… fucking everything. It’s easy to carry a weapon and you do not one ball is needed, my friend.

        What you need to grow is fear of “the bad guys”.

    • GeeOhPeeved

      October 26, 2012 at 2:47 pm

      Freedom is having the option.

      Safer if everybody has weapons? I don’t know, look at Chicago or DC: plenty of restrictions on gun ownership, yet their some of the most dangerous places in this country. That would be because criminals don’t pay attention to gun restrictions, meaning the law abiding portion of the population has no defense against those who, in the simple act of owning a gun in the first place, have shown a willingness to break the law.

      As to insistance on protecting our rights out of fear: consider it insurance. I don’t spend my days dreading becoming ill, yet I still think it’s a good idea to have health insurance. Same idea: while I don’t necessarily expect my government to become so tyrannical that I am forced to take up arms against it, it’s a good idea to be prepared for the possibility. Considering the fact that our government has been granting itself more and more authority over our private lives over the last century, it’s more important now than ever.

      The fact that Breivik was able to murder that many innocent people kind of works against your point that, “You don’t get shot as long as you’re not a criminal.” Considering the incredibly lenient sentence he recieved, your police shouldn’t be too terribly proud of taking him alive; imagine getting what amounts to a free 21 year stay in a hotel for murdering 77 people, including children. I’d much rather somebody had dropped him as soon as he started shooting.

      You’re point on the New York incident is what? That the police need more firearms training? I agree. More likely, though, you’re suggesting that we disarm the majority of our police, as supposedly has. If you want to see a spike in the number of dead police officers, then that is by all means the route to go. You’re view of law enforcement, while it may work well for your country (77 innocents slaughtered makes me question that) is dangerously naive when applied to crime in the US.

      You’re final point is actually one that fits our views better than your own, whether you realize it or not.

      First you say that if you decide you want a gun, you’ll get one despite the laws. That’s kind of OUR point: a criminal isn’t going to throw away his weapons or give up on attaining one simply because some stuffed suit passes a law banning them, he’ll simply step outside legal chanels. Meanwhile, law abiding citizens would be left at his mercy, as they will have been disarmed.

      Next, you say that if you ever felt really unsafe, you’d just move. Well, that’s an option we’d like to see more people in THIS country take: You don’t like the fact that your neighbors are guaranteed certain rights? Move to a country in which the people don’t have those rights.

      • addictedtodrugs

        October 29, 2012 at 3:31 pm

        Yepp. The easiest would have been a dead Breivik, of course. Less expensive too. But I don’t think you got the right information if you think he is going to be a free man again. I know Fox was far off more than once.

        Yeah, killing him is OK, but then we still would have wondered why. His views are worth shit but now we know a lot more about why he did that shit. Then we also know more about preventing it and becoming a better society. It is wiser this way.

        So? There are options. Most people are friendly. Every little country has a constitution. You are not special, but just like me and everybody else. We learn to live with each others. We become civilized. Values change. You can change. Constitution changes. More guns = more shooting = more deaths. Everything happens for a reason.

        But USA is not Norway, that’s for sure. One step at the time, people. And don’t argue Mahmoud Ahmadinejads cause.

        Its been interesting.

    • GeeOhPeeved

      October 29, 2012 at 4:54 pm

      You say I’m wrong about him being released because judges could POTENTIALLY add five year sentences after his initial sentence is over, if they decide that he’s still a threat. Yeah, because there’s NO WAY he’ll realize over the course of two decades that all he has to do to get free and kill more people is convince some people that he won’t do it again…

      Ok…so, what have we learned from him? That crazy people can be violent? Wow, what a breakthrough.

      “We learn to live with each other…etc” Sure, except for those who don’t. You’ve said nothing at all to address the fact that criminals would still have guns and the will to use them even if guns were banned. Again, you yourself said that you’d violate a ban if you decided you wanted a gun.

      As far as constitutions changing, the purpose for which the second amendment was put in place is valid- it is important to allow the citizenry of a free society to maintain their ability to defend themselves, both from criminals and from the potentiality of a tyrannical government.

      Ahmadinejad? Sorry, I’m not a despotic anti-semite. In fact, as all that goes, YOU’RE the one arguing in favor of denying people their rights. Sorry, swing and a miss, bud.

  12. Skulljager

    October 18, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    Interesting viewpoint ya got there.While fistfights are the recourse of supposedly civilized men, there are those who simply cannot do so.You honestly expect an 82 year old woman to fist fight a 250 lb man?, come on, for ages guns have gone by names such as lawgivers, peacemakers, and most accurately…equalizers.As with any tool,some skill is required to wield one proper, but I think the majority of civilian gun owners are likely better shots than many police.

    • Tony Oliva

      October 19, 2012 at 9:11 am

      I have to agree with Skull there addicted. It has been said that “God created men, but sam colt made them equal.” I tend to agree. A young woman is not going to fist fight her way out of a gang rape. The 92 year old isn’t going to karate chop his home invading burglars out of their house.

      Now, while I probably could disarm some knife wielding mugger why should I be forced to take the chance of getting hurt? I do agree with you that you shouldn’t bring a gun to a fist fight. But perhaps the better solution is not to fight at all.

      But that’s just the individual level. What happens when the American people are going to be metaphorically gang raped by the government. Sure, we’ll blow our whistles and call out for help but when it comes down to it, either we are equipped to fight or we become victims.

      The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with toughness or anything so mundane. It is the last line of defense, and more often the passive deterrent from threats and those who would do us harm. Are there jackasses out there who abuse this right? Yep. But to turn an entire nation into servants without rights just because of a few people is not America. It is an attack on freedom. So that is why, ATD, we correlate the ability to have firearms with freedom.

  13. addictedtodrugs

    October 19, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Nice answers. I tend to agree. (Do you know where I can find statistics on around gun firing? It could be interesting). Still there are other not lethal solutions like pepper spray, stun guns and good old precautions will avoid most threatening situations.

    About abusing your right to carry weapons. A woman kills her husband and claims she was being raped. He was just trying to make love to her, when she suddenly started screaming and kicking before shooting him dead. She was really, really bored. Maybe even depressed. She wanted to change her life, have some money, apartment for herself or any other strange motive that drives a woman to kill. Where is the limit? When do you get “the license to kill?”

    In a bigger perspective: Is it OK for any country to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves against more powerful nations, since they have nuclear weapons? It is more balanced, for a little country like Iran.

    Another thing. I would like to have the freedom to carry a weapon. Hypothetically: I’m able to kill anybody easily. But I don’t feel threatened. What I feel is pain. And the only thing that helps is heroin. Then I can relax. Think about other things, have a decent life. But I’m not allowed. Drugs are illegal. I’m not in any way threatening other people. I just want to be happy. What I mean is that a lot should be legalized before legalizing equipment built for destruction.

    You know what I meant with the fist fight? Of course you would avoid any trouble first. But compared to gunfights they tend to be more fair. There are a billion ways to have a fair battle.

    In the future when everybody has understood the basic “it’s-better-to-live-than-die-rule”, wars will be fought on the football field or by role play, or just simulated with games like Red Alert or WoW.

    You gotta fight for you right to party before you fight for your right to take someones life. Now my pain is getting worse, so I’ll go get my gun. Just kidding 😉 but I will use illegal substances.

    Cheers. Have fun!

  14. addictedtodrugs

    October 19, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    One more thing. More restrictions on guns is an option. Everybody here can have a gun, but you need a course to learn how to handle it, and be a member of a gun club or what you call it.

    • GeeOhPeeved

      October 26, 2012 at 3:45 pm

      Cool, so what classes should we be forced to take/clubs must we join in order to speek freely?

      What works in Norway won’t necessarily work here, even without considering that what the government is legally allowed to do isn’t the same here as it is there.

      • addictedtodrugs

        October 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm

        You should know the language and be able to speak. Speaking freely won’t get you very far though. Writing can help, but then you need to know letters and shit. And words. And Sentences. And then you can try to kill me with that.

    • GeeOhPeeved

      October 29, 2012 at 4:35 pm

      Can’t reply directly to your reply, apparently.

      “You should know the language and be able to speak. Speaking freely won’t get you very far though. Writing can help, but then you need to know letters and shit. And words. And Sentences. And then you can try to kill me with that.”

      So, you’re saying that those who are illiterate or poorly educated shouldn’t be allowed to speak? Well, at least you’re consistent. Wrong, but consistent.


    October 20, 2012 at 10:20 am


  16. Rob

    October 22, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” – Barack Obama

    • Tony Oliva

      October 22, 2012 at 2:33 pm

      Doesn’t get more direct than that. That’s the Chicago way after all.

  17. Jane

    October 22, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    In my opinion, the problem with gun control is if the government takes away your right to bear arms, the drug loard and criminals will always have a way to get them ( Sometimes from our own incompetent in charge( I.E. Fast n Furious) I don’t run around carrying a gun but I have access to one if needed. NO ONE is going to take that away from me.

  18. Miro

    October 22, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    While I agree with most of your statements, I think everyone can agree you need an editor. At the very least, someone to proofread your posts.

  19. Please

    October 23, 2012 at 2:43 am

    The definition of “Assault weapons” was created in political government in 1994. The actual term (considered a legal term, defined by a law) expired in 2004, meaning we ACTUALLY dont know what “Assault Weapons” could mean in this situation, as the definition used in 1994 would have zero to do with a new ban on guns, except convince some people that “assault weapons” should be banned- but assault weapons are just any weapon the Government deems an Assault Weapon.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: