ADVERTISEMENT

Following the mass murder at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, lawmakers were quick to begin calling for increased gun control and second amendment restrictions. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California has been the most vocal advocate at the federal level discussing a forced buyback program as well as a new “assault weapons” ban.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report from The Washington Times:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory.

“We are also looking at a buy-back program,” Feinstein said today in a press conference. “Now, again, this is a work in progress so these are ideas in the development.”

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., already discussed the possibility of a buy-back law for his state, but he made clear it would be a forced buyback.

“Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo told The New York Times yesterday when discussing semiautomatic weapons. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

This one is ripe for discussion.

67 COMMENTS

  1. I’m wondering why there was so little coverage of the guy who set fire to the house and then shot firefighters.

    • I don’t wonder. That man was a convicted felon, and the laws of his state forbid him from legally owning any firearms. Therefore, the gun(s) he used to shoot and kill these firefighters were ILLEGALLY obtained. Therefore, this story did not advance the agenda of the anti-gun people, and it did not get pushed to the “front page”.

  2. Pardon the pun, but this is somewhat of an overkill. I read where more people die because of medical malpractice every year. Are we going to confiscate all medical instruments used in performing the operation? Of course not. This is just a situation where a politician(s) is trying to get some political brownie points. The idea of placing an armed guard at each school makes a lot of sense. Currently, all public buildings have an armed guard. Curretly you cannot get into a public building without going through a metal detector. Why not add guards at a different location, in this case, school buildings.

    As for the fiscal deal issue, this is more political bull crap. Let’s just quit spending so damn much money. Obama is not a good President, he is a good “BSer”. The Republican Party has to find someone who is as “cleaver.”

  3. Buying back guns, confiscating guns? These ideas are a waste of time. Drug cartels, criminals, unstable nut balls, hunters, they would just hide their guns. Guns will never be eliminated. The best thing to do is use metal detectors in all schools, have one exit entrance for everyone and have a few guards. Buses too could have metal detectors.

  4. I am a parent of a child in elementary school.
    I absolutely do not want visible armed guards and security checkpoints in my child’s school.
    Far too 1984 for my comfort level. I never want my child to become used to or comfortable with a police presence everywhere they go. I do not want to encourage a society where not only is big brother always watching, but he is physically right there with you at all times. Fastest way to get there is to train the young.

    I would rather see some or all of the staff at each school start training with local law enforcement. Have these trained staff members carry concealed. Post a sign near every entrance “Armed Responder on Premise During School Hours”.

    Make gun safety part of every day life in our communities, rather than gun fear. Instead of “No guns allowed on premise” I would much rather see “Clear your weapon before entering” signs. If everyone understood what the latter message means, because it was just part of our community culture, we would be a much safer gun society.

    We have D.A.R.E. programs and similar initiatives to combat drug use for our children, why not take similar approaches to combat gun violence? Start teaching firearm safety as early as possible. The right to keep and bear arms is protected by our countries founding document (protected, not granted – we had the right before the document was written), the least we should expect from our public school system is our children’s ability to understand and safely exercise their rights.

    • Luke: Yeah. Like maybe they should put land mines all around the school. so if someone is not in this year’s class, they won’t know where not to step. . . .

    • Luke, I agree. We do not need more of Big Brother protecting us, and especially not in the government day-jails. End the idiotic gun-free zone laws, and allow the teachers, parents, whoever is on the premises, to respond to violent attacks in an appropriate manner to protect the lives of the children and other adults.

  5. Alfred and Mack are right. Feinstein is going way overboard AND a law like this would not bring the results we all want.
    Local and/or state run programs to put armed guards in schools is the way to go. Another viable option would be to allow a limited number of administrators, and maybe teachers, to carry a concealed weapon if they have a permit. A school district in Texas is already doing this.
    Mass murders often involve a lot of planning. Tight gun laws aren’t going to stop a killer, who will find some way to get a gun. The only way to stop these nuts is by allowing potential victims (excluding children) to arm themselves.

  6. Submitted without comment:

    (Reuters) – Three New Jersey police officers were shot early on Friday at their police station, and one was in surgery for his wounds, a hospital official said.

    The incident follows several recent multiple shootings in the United States, and comes two weeks after a gunman killed 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

    One week ago in western Pennsylvania, a man with a pistol fatally shot three people and then opened fire on police. Three officers were injured in that incident, one in a collision from a car chase with the gunman, another from bullet fragments to the face and a third who was struck with gunfire to the chest but survived because he was wearing a bulletproof vest.

  7. Lets just make more laws to keep criminals from shooting people…..because criminals always follow the law

  8. maybe she should spend some time in a state where there ore no concealed carry permits issued like Illinois. Chicago to be exact, south side. All guns are illegal so she should be safe.

  9. by Ron Paul:

    “The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.

    Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws.

    The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.

    While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.

    Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.

    Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.

    Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

    Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.

    Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qASIrUyi48&feature=player_embedded

  10. The cowboy and ‘shoot ’em up’ is the ethos or at least the cariature of the American. Many believe this imge and live up to it. A nation with a propensity for ‘action–violence,’ and overly blown concept of ‘individual freedom,’ and a low measure of morality and rights of other,needs STRONG rules on guns. The rank monetary rationales that the ‘cowboy’ crowd presents is so shaallow that only the dim of sight could accept them.

  11. Tom May…have you ever met a real cowboy? Well, I have had that privilege. For you to strongly suggest that a cowboy mentality is responsible for a low measure of morality and rights of others is insufferable. You must have missed a few of the old John Wayne movies. Individual freedom is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. It is freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, economic freedom, and freedom to choose your life style. How “overly blown” can that become?

    • Tess: You know what Tom really meant. In the common vernacular, we use words to suggest a style or behavior. In our ordinary conversation, a “cowboy” is not the rugged independent who lives a tough life and does the right thing. The term “cowboy,” in this usage, has come to mean a careless gunslinger who uses his gun as a substitute for real manhood.

      It’s like calling a woman a “whore.” That’s not the same as saying all women who like sex are despicable.

  12. Few acknowlege, or care, that the USA is BY FAR the most lethal of the ‘developed’ nations where gun deaths are concerned.
    Let’s just shoot it out once and for all and be done with it, arm our toddlers and grannies with assault weaponry, and blast away! More money for the gun sellers and a sop to the lawmakers paid off by the NRA. The school armed guards will really send those gun stocks sky high! And the guards better have assault weapons like the shooters or they’ll be outclassed. I say the answer for citizen safety is to MOVE, to Norway, Canada or Australia, the latter locale where they successfully did what is being suggested – banning and buying up the assault weapons.

    • Shirley: If 3-year-olds all had “assault weaponry” (which could be a rock, if I throw it at someone, but I’ll assume you mean guns), everyone would get shot. This means less money for the gun companies in the long run because all of their potential customers would be dead.

      • Eric: Naw, cuz the NRA would tell us we’d each need to double up on the guns we own, to protect ourselves from the 3-year-olds. But, seriously, I think the NRA suggests a 5-year-old minimum for the use of assault weapons, so we’re probably worrying needlessly.

        • Still kind of young, I think I was about 7 before I got a 410. Only shot clay birds, well I shot at them anyhow. Had my Dad or Uncle cover me when I missed.

          • Billy: Yeah, gotta have somebody cover you if you’re shooting at clay pigeons. If you don’t hit ’em, they’ll come for you.

            Reminds me of a story from my youth. My best friend and I were saddled with a young kid he had to watch. A total jerk. We were wandering around by the factory and the kid saw a huge hawk in a tree. He started throwing rocks at the hawk. We told him to knock it off, since the bird wasn’t hurting anybody. He kept it up, so we just started walking away, while he kept stopping to throw more stones. Suddenly, the hawk dive-bombed him. He made a number of swoops, slamming into the kid’s head on each pass. The hawk didn’t bother either my friend or me, but hit the jerk kid several times. The kid ran home bawling, and justice was served.

    • Come on now, it’s not that bad. Just think what would have happened if Adam had tried that gig in one of the Chicago city schools. He would have look like a piece of swiss cheese before he hit the floor when the students returned fire.

  13. A government that does not trust all lawful Citizens to own and bear arms (guns) is a government NOT to be trusted!

    Period.

    • the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

  14. Ron Paul: “I Have Always Voted against the NDAA Regardless of What Party Controls the House.”

    By Ron Paul December 2012:

    “”Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose what will be the final National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) I will face as a Member of the US House of Representatives. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have always voted against the NDAA regardless of what party controls the House. Far from simply providing an authorization for the money needed to defend this country, which I of course support, this authorization and its many predecessors have long been used to fuel militarization, enrich the military industrial complex, expand our empire overseas, and purchase military and other enormously expensive equipment that we do not need and in large part does not work anyway. They wrap all of this mess up in false patriotism, implying that Members who do not vote for these boondoggles do not love their country.

    The military industrial complex is a jigsaw puzzle of seemingly competing private companies; but they are in reality state-sponsored enterprises where well-connected lobbyists, usually after long and prosperous careers in the military or government, pressure Congress to fund pet projects regardless of whether we can afford them or whether they are needed to defend our country. This convenient arrangement is the welfare of the warfare state.

    Because of the false perception that we must pass this military spending authorization each year or our men and women in uniform will go hungry, Congress has over the years taken the opportunity to pack it with other items that would have been difficult to pass on their own. This is nothing new on Capitol Hill. In the last few years, however, this practice has taken a sinister turn.

    The now-infamous NDAA for fiscal year 2012, passed last year, granted the president the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge, without access to an attorney, and without trial. It is difficult to imagine anything more un-American than this attack on our Constitutional protections. While we may not have yet seen the widespread use of this unspeakably evil measure, a wider application of this “authority” may only be a matter of time.

    Historically these kinds of measures have been used to bolster state power at the expense of unpopular scapegoats. The Jewish citizens of 1930s Germany knew all about this reprehensible practice. Lately the scapegoats have been mostly Muslims. Hundreds, perhaps many more, even Americans, have been held by the US at Guantanamo and in other secret prisons around the world.

    But this can all change quickly, which makes it all the more dangerous. Maybe one day it will be Christians, gun-owners, home-schoolers, etc.

    That is why last year, along with Reps. Justin Amash, Walter Jones, and others, we attempted to simply remove the language from the NDAA (sec. 1021) that gave the president this unconstitutional authority. It was a simple, readable amendment. Others tried to thwart our straightforward efforts by crafting elaborately worded amendments that in practice did noting to protect us from this measure in the bill. Likewise this year there were a few celebrated but mostly meaningless attempts to address this issue. One such effort passed in the senate version of this bill. The conferees have simply cut it out. The will of Congress was thus ignored by a small group of Members and Senators named by House and Senate leadership.

    There are many other measures in this NDAA Conference Report to be concerned about. It continues to fund our disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere for example.

    The Conference Report contains yet another round of doomed-to-fail new sanctions against Iran. These are acts of war against Iran without actually firing a shot. But this time the House and Senate conferees are going further than that. The report contains language that pushes the US as close to an actual authorization for the use of force against Iran as we can get. The Report “…asserts that the U.S. should be prepared to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the U.S., its allies, or Iran’s neighbors with a nuclear weapon and reinforces the military option should it prove necessary.”

    This kind of language just emboldens Iran’s enemies in the region to engage in increasingly reckless behavior with the guarantee that the US military will step in if they push it too far. That is an unwise move for everyone concerned.

    This Conference Report contains increased levels of foreign military aid, including an additional half-billion dollars in missile assistance to an already prosperous Israel and some $300 million to help an increasingly prosperous Russia control its chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. And Russia does not even want the money!

    Overall, this authorization will give the president even more money for military activities next year than he requested. At a time when the news has been dominated by reports of our budget crisis, the “fiscal cliff,” and the “need” to increase taxes on Americans, Congress is foolishly spending even more on the military budget than the administration wants! I suppose that is what counts as a reduction in the language of Washington.

    I urge my colleagues to oppose this, and all future, reckless and dangerous military spending bills that are destroying our national security by destroying our economy.””

  15. Arm dealers will stay unmenaced at the trough as long as they have the public support of the likes of Quick Draw Steve Stockman (R-Texas). He wants to impeach President Obama for considering executive action to control the sale of some guns and ammunition, before any recommendations had been made on gun control. President George H.W. Bush used his executive authority in 1968 to permanently ban the import of 43 specific firearms including modified versions of the AK-47 and the Uzi. President Clinton banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, Uzis, AR-15s and other ‘assault weapons’. The gun industry, as usual, found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models. George W Bush said in the 2000 campaign that he would sign an extension of the 10-year ban on the semiautomatic weapons. However,he allowed the ban to expire. The controvarsial second amendment allows President Obama to propose gun control laws for Congressional approval as well as issuing executive orders. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order from Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves. The paranoid delusion that the second amendment gives citizens the right to bear arm have forotten that the same amendment gives all citizens the right to be safe on the street, at home or in the schoolhouse. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (District of Columbia vs. Heller) wrote that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

    • A ten-year ban on semi-automatic weapons. It’s not like semi-automatic weapons are going to get any less deadly in a decade.

      I’m surprised they don’t have ten year extensions on laws against murder, rape, and kiddie-porn.

    • How come the governor of NY didn’t ban the mfg of what he call assault rifles in his state. Oh, no, he wants the jobs they create and the money they bring in.

  16. Remington Arms, the two century old arms manufacturer in upper New York, would be amiss financially to continue manufacturing banned firearms, especially, since Remington Arms manufactured the Bushmaster Assualt Weapons that was used in Sandy Hook murders and in the murder of two firefighters in Webster. Remington’s biggest consumer in the United States is the Hunter. There is no ban or restriction on how many Shotguns (all styles), Rifles (all types), Handguns (all types)and accessories Remington can manufacture and sell to hunters or for home protection anywhere.

  17. I think they can sell them to just about anyone with few exceptions. Know someone with a concealed weapons permit and you got the gun you want like right now. That isn’t the problem, like where do all the guns the kids have in Chicago come from? That is a problem big time. The police can only control the price the guy who wants one is going to pay and right now they run about $50.00 over list price. Cost you more to buy a legal one with the background check and tax.

  18. Billy, Reluctantly, I see your well made point. What is your thoughts on how to keep guns out of the hands of the young, the impaired, and the thugs?

    • Tess, so long as there is a demand there will be a supply. Way beyond my pay grade to even begin to figure out how to cut down on the demand.

    • Tess: There are more guns that people in this country. The idea that someone is going to “take” guns is just silly. We can’t even stop war weapons from being spread all over the country. The question is where do criminals get their guns?

      “Straw purchases” are sales in which a criminal or minor have a friend buy them. Seems to me, if a gun is used in a crime, the purchaser should have to answer to the use of the gun.

      “Theft”–There are so many guns in this country that you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one. With more guns than people, there’s no trick to “finding” one.

      “Corrupt sellers”–If someone sells a gun to a criminal or minor, they should have to prove why they should not go to jail.

      “Corrupt sellers part 2”–23,775 guns have been “stolen” from gun shops since 1994. A seller who cannot guard his inventory should be shut down.

      How do criminals get guns? 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it. Guns are passed around because nobody cares.

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

        • Billy: Probably wouldn’t need new laws. Buying for someone else is already illegal. It’s a matter of enforcement.

          We need to focus on the source of guns that are used in crime. Nail the criminals who sell to criminals. Whoever was the last legal owner should have to pay for being irresponsible (or worse).

          Look at New York. It was crawling with crime, and then they instituted a no-tolerance drive, and the place cleaned up.

          Regarding the Newtown killings, the kid didn’t get the guns and ammo out of thin air. His mother should not have been allowed to own the guns if she could not secure them. And since she did not secure them, she’s damned guilty. Yet, she walks free. She should pay, and maybe people would think twice before loading up on military weapons and then leaving them available.

          The source of the problem is the source of the guns.

          • So long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. We went after the drug problem on all fronts and it worked just about as well as prohibition.

            • Billy: A defeatist attitude can get tiring. Nobody thought crime could ever be curtailed in New York City. Too many people. Not enough cops. And so on. But it happened.

              There are more guns than people in this country, but when a crime DOES occur, the gun needs to be tracked back to the criminal who sold it, transferred it, or allowed it to be used. That is something that CAN be done. And if you can “put the fear of God” in people, they won’t be so careless or malevolent.

              The NRA is always claiming they are for “responsible” use of guns. They should get behind ending IRRESPONSIBLE gun transfer.

            • No problem tracing the gun back, my problem is tracing the gun forward like they did prior to Auschwitz and Treblinka. The government has always been a much greater threat than the “criminal”. Seems like the higher up we go on the food chain the harder it is to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

  19. Auschwitz and Treblinka were long ago and faraway exterminatiom camps in German occupied Poland but their ghosts came back to haunt us with Guantanamo, our waterboarding and neuroscience practices. There has always been a bad element,even in the Garden of Eden. It isn’t difficult to recognize good and it isn’t difficult to recognize bad. The great American fault is that the majority do not think for themselves. They listen to untruthful politicans who have their own agenda, to the propaganda of Limbaugh, Allen Jones, etc and allow that to become their thought process. Evidently, this is simpler than doing their own research for the truth. American citizens actually have control of the government though the vote but refuse to use it wisely.

  20. The NRA has failed to protect the spirit of the 2nd. After seeing how the government operated during the RNC here in Tampa I doubt is the gun owners could hold out as long as the Jews did at Wausau. They lasted 9 days. Once they get the list the gun owners win that coveted seat on the Gunderson Boxcar.

    • When I was a kid, I read the NRA statement about using a gun responsibly and I was impressed. I am no longer impressed. The NRA no longer has any credibility. They are not about responsibility. They are not even about safety. They are about selling more guns–of any description–to anyone and everyone, regardless of purpose.

      If the NRA had come out with a condemnation of the woman who made the guns available to the resent shooter, they’d be worthy of a hearing. If they had offered ANY suggestion to stop illegal and heinous use of firearms, they’d deserve a hearing. Instead, they totally ignored that we have a problem, and their answer is to pump even more guns into the system–in which we already have more guns than people.

      You don’t have to blame the guns, but you certainly should blame the shooter, and you should blame the person who made the guns available to the shooter.

      • Well that’s no how I read the 2nd but maybe all those restrictions were intended just not stated. Every insurance policy carries a premium. Gun running has been going on for a long time and sometimes even the bad guy do some good and the good guts do a lot of bad. (American Indian & Holder)

        • Billy: Where in the Constitution does it say convicted felons can’t have all the guns they want? Isn’t that “abridging” the right to bear arms?

          Where in the Constitution does it say kids can’t pack heat?

          Where in the Constitution does it say we can’t have grenades, rocket launchers, atomic weapons?

            • Billy: OK. Allow me to rephrase:

              Where in the Constitution does it say we SHALL infringe on a convicted felons right to bear arms?

              Where in the Constitution does it say we SHALL infringe on a young child’s right to bear arms?

              Where in the Constitution does it say we SHALL infringe on a person’s right to bear arms such as grenades, rocket launchers, atomic weapons, nerve gas, etc.?

            • Kids may fall under common sense. Convicted felons, after they serve their time, why not. Many states give them that right back but the Feds do not. AS for you last paragraph, the intent was: the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

            • Billy:

              “Common sense?? Whose common sense? Where is it written?

              As for my last paragraph, you seem to be saying that all people should have the right to hold “unlimited power of the sword” (ie, nuclear bombs, nerve gas, missiles, etc.) but the federal and state governments are NOT allowed to have same. Does that include disarming cops and reducing the military to clubs and slingshots?

            • Those are not my words they are from the framers of the 2nd. And no. when it comes time to load up the Gunderson Boxcars there will be little or no resistance from the 2nd because registration comes right ahead of confiscation. The voters favor registration in hopes it will save a few but they have learned nothing from History.

            • Paranoia, dude.

              There are already more guns than people in this country. The problem will never be lack of guns.

              There just is no justification for military weapons off military bases.

            • I agree with the paranola but on the government’s part. During the Civil war the Spencer and Henry were far superior to what the military had. During prohibition the Thompson had it all over what the government had. Soooooo the government passed the NFA in 1934 and gutted the spirit of the 2nd. You seem to agree with the government on this issue, I don’t. I believe as did the framers of the 2nd: the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. I’m sure ever Jew at Auschwitz and Treblinka would have agreed with you. Shall we move on to Stalin…………..

  21. The NFA of 1934 covered two specific types of guns: machine guns and short-barrel firearms. It did not ban either weapon, but imposed a tax on transfers of these weapons. We need to remember these were the days of John Dillinger, Al Capone and Texas’ own Bonnie and Clyde. The Second Amendment has so many interpretations made by judges, the supreme court, and nearly every individual in our country, that there is little hope of finding a common ground. I found myself applauding Bill Maher as he addressed gun huggers everywhere, “It’s not your second amendment rights that are under attack, it’s all the other ones.”

  22. Billy…I have been waiting for someone else to reply to your one word answer. Infringe appears to have been a word of choice among the Framers. The Ninth amendment, in essence, states that the federal government cannot infringe on other fundamental rights of US citizens even if they are not specifically listed. Infringe is a breach or infraction. A violation of a law, a right, or an obligation. The average American infringes several times daily without consequences.

    • Put the word to the test or tear the page from the book. The trouble is we got too many judges that put them square pegs into the round holes. You regulate privileges not rights. If you need a license or a permit, it’s a privilege not a right.

Comments are closed.