TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Another blow to gun owners



Toolbox

Published: October 19, 2009

A recent article on New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's sting operation to expose the "gun show loophole" read like an editorial promoting gun control. In actuality, the sting exposed nothing.

Under federal law, a private seller is under no more obligation to consider a buyer's eligibility to pass a background check when making a sale at a gun show than he is in his living room or anywhere else. Neither are beauty supply houses that sell hydrogen peroxide under an obligation to ask if the buyer is going to bleach hair or make a bomb.

A gun show is a building with a collection of tables that are for rent to just about anyone. Besides guns, people sell jewelry, decorative items, books and a bunch of other things. Some are federally licensed gun dealers and some are not. The gun show promoters are under no legal obligation to determine licensing requirements, the sellers are.

What the mayor's sting is really about is shutting down all private sales of firearms and forcing them to go through someone with a federal firearms license. This would do nothing to keep criminals from stealing and selling guns to anyone. It would simply be another tax on gun owners and another blow to the right to keep and bear arms.

Peter Magoon

Randolph Center








READER COMMENTS


Really? Still debating the blow to illegal gun owners or sellers? Geez, the government is holding gun show sellers to the same standards as gun shop owners...what an outrage, let me get out my original copy of the bill of rights and a 50 caliber and show these tree huggers who's boss. You still have your guns, no one is taking them, it is still your right to hunt, collect, and accidentally shoot your son who comes home past curfew. Lighten up.
-- Posted by Jim Richards on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 8:24 pm EST

report this comment



Also Bennett, there are countless articles about the terrorist watch list. From your earlier posts I had gotten the impression that you were a "civil liberties" liberal. Why are you using the terror watch list to make your argument. There are 1000000 Americans on the terror watch list. Do you really think there are 1000000 terrorists in our country? It is obviously an arbitrary list created by our surveillance state and booming military-industrial complex. Do you remember the debacles of the no-fly list, Bennett?
Nelson Mandela is on the terror watch list, Bennett. Do you still want to use this tyrannical list to make an argument?
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/watchlistcounter.html

If anything this list is a violation of due process rights.

Bennett, your other point is well-taken about societies wanting to prevent individuals from owning nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. Do you think that this extends, though, to personal firearms? In my opinion, this should not extend to personal firearms of any sort. The problem with the Constitution is often that it is too vague and doesn't explicitly protect natural rights. That is why I would rather appeal to natural rights philosophy to make my case for the right to bear arms.
-- Posted by Mr. West on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 7:07 pm EST

report this comment



Bennett,

Just the other day I was slicing a bagel and cut my finger.
This past summer I was hammering a nail and hit my thumb, causing a nasty bruise.
When my uncle was young he and his friends were messing around and cutting down trees. A tree fell and broke his back.

This is the thread where we share our crazy accident stories, right?
-- Posted by Mr. West on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 6:53 pm EST

report this comment



Melissa, sorry if I miss you obtuse references. I am just a hick in the sticks :) Make you point and make it clear.

Walt, your point if very valid. Our style of fighting is very subseptible (sp) to gorrilla (sp) style warefare, add to that our "don't kill "civilians" orders and we lose.

War is hell people die, People shpuld die the good the bad the ugly should be broadcast from the ends of the earth to the public, then perhaps they will tire of it and the world would be a better place.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 8:42 am EST

report this comment



However out-of-date our equipment is, the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated the vulnerability of modern military forces to primitive weapons; crude roadside bombs; and and enemy who not only isn't afraid to die, but frequently does so as a tactic of war.
-- Posted by walt amses on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 7:03 pm EST

report this comment



You don't see the point because you choose not too. The equipment the troops are using are not what they need today, they are for yesterdays wars. They are not up to the needs of the combat area they are in, I put in stuff from DOD because it shows the type of equipment they need for flying in those areas. I believe the issue they had with the helicopters crashing this passed week, is because they are not equipped to be in sand ridden areas the engines suck in more dust then they can push back out, causing the engines to cease up, but if you wish to play blind to the obsolete equipment they are using in a battle, then that's your decision.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 5:56 pm EST

report this comment



Melissa,
You proved nothing by that post. Terms old, out-of-date, and obsolete have always been tossed around. I just said they can not be swapped with unsafe. Anything of significant technology level is old, out-of-date, and obsolete by the time the consumer gets it.

Bennet, Just goes to prove maybe we work to hard at saving people. Maybe there should be a lifeguard on the gene pool of life that blows a whistle and says "You! Out of the pool". Just my other half of your laugh for the day :)

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 5:04 pm EST

report this comment



Suggestion: We should take the Afghanistan Discussion over to this Editorial, we truly have hijacked the gun thread.


http://www.timesargus.com/article/20091029/OPINION01/910290323/1021/OPINION01
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 4:29 pm EST

report this comment



I see.. =-)
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 4:14 pm EST

report this comment



Melissa,

I'm just trying to convey the breadth of the relationship that we have with guns here in America. We love to tout the benefits of guns, but we should also acknowledge that we are idiots a lot of the time when it comes to them, too. I don't think these issues are simple, and I like us to be aware of the nature of what and who we are when we are making decisions about laws that effect our lives and our safety. And we as a species are pretty ridiculous, no?.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 3:54 pm EST

report this comment



I'm missing something.. are you advocating that stupid people shouldn't have guns Bennett?
Or that gun's should be banned because stupid people shoot themselves or friends or family?
Or that gun non-safety is the result for the need to keep guns from criminals?

These are articles of people mishandling their weapons, not guns people received from gun shows and committed crimes after, kind of not helping that point is it?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 3:18 pm EST

report this comment



What the heck.

James Looney, 40, accidentally shot himself in the head while teaching firearms safety to his girlfriend in Imperial, MO. Witnesses said Looney was demonstrating the different safety mechanisms on several guns and would put the gun to his head and ask his girlfriend if she thought the gun would fire, then pull the trigger. KSDK-TV reported the safety worked for the first two guns, but not the third.

Larry Tenbrink, 61, was watching TV at home in Mount Vernon, Wash., when he heard his chickens "carrying on," he told the Skagit Valley Herald. He grabbed his .22 caliber pistol, headed outside and spotted an opossum the size of a big cat. Tenbrink said he went to shoot the animal but pulled the trigger too soon and shot himself in the thigh.

A 38-year-old man old sheriff's deputies in Carver's Bay, GA., he and another man were practicing with a rifle at a hunting club when he tried to shoot some dragonflies. Just then the other man walked in front of him and was shot in the head. The Georgetown Times said the victim insisted the shooting was accidental.

Roy Jenkins, 44, was arguing with his girlfriend on his cellphone while trying to conceal a shotgun by shoving it down his pants leg. The gun discharged. "He blew his little toe off," Alemeda, CA. police Lt. Bill Scott told the Alemeda Sun, "with additional collateral damage to his shin."

Debra Monce, 56, was in a restroom stall at a hotel in Tampa FLA., when her small caliber gun fell out of her waist holster. It fired when it hit the floor and wounded Janifer Bliss, 54, who was in the next stall.

There are lots more.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 2:54 pm EST

report this comment



Timothy Allen Davis, 22, told sheriff's investigators in Lee County, FLA., that he was digging through a drawer looking for a shirt, but when he pulled it out, his .380 semi-automatic handgun flipped in the air, landed and discharged a round. The Fort Myers News-Press reported the bullet hit Davis in the rear end.

Authorities charged Donald Goodrich, 38, with menacing an Apple Store employee in Cincinnati because he was frustrated his iPhone wasn't working properly. WCPO News reported Goodrich told the employee he "was so mad he could pop a 9 mm at it" and then opened his shirt and showed her the handgun.

Police in Miamisburg, OH, locked down an elementary school after a report of a shooting in the vicinity, even though students were off that day. Neighbors initially said someone was running around the area firing a gun, but police determined that a man who lives nearby accidentally shot himself in the hand while cleaning his gun.

Four days after Ralph Needs, 80, was pistol-whipped during a home invasion in Groveport, OH, he was learning to fire a gun to defend himself when he was shot in the hand as one of his sons was loading the 9 mm pistol.

Police in Fayette County, PA confiscated an 80 lb. homemade cannon after William Edward Maser, 54, fired it in his yard, sending a 2 pound lead ball through the side of his neighbor's house. State Trooper Brian Burden told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette the cannonbal broke a window and travelled through a wall before landing in a clothes closet.

Want more?

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 2:38 pm EST

report this comment



Douglas, if you don't like the term Old, then lets use Obsolete or Out dated.

From DOD
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56146
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 1:05 pm EST

report this comment



Bennett, Powder for reloading is considered an explosive. I don't have much interest in generalities. YOu could be on the terror watch list, should we stop you from buying "stuff"

I have had friends in the past buy 50lbs of reloading powder (i.e. explosives) big deal. Anybody who has an issue with Gov't can be on the Terrorist Watch List ( TWL). I could be, as prior military I stand a better chance than most. Then next big group on TWL is gun owners, that gould be you mom who always wanted that .22 to plink with. Your wife who kust bought your son/daughter their first hunting rifle so they could go hunting with grampa.

Grampa, who is involved in local youth sports and does reloading for them, So, they can afford to shoot skeet, and perhaps after the fund raiser goes and buys 50lbs of poweder because dealer cut them a discount to help out.

The TWL is crap in 99% of all cases. It mostly doesn't mean nothing. Oh, all the left wingers and right wingers tend to be on that list also. I forgot who testified before Congress, maybe it was Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) and list groups under watch or on TWL. After a big long spew aid by DHS, Congress roughly said (I am recalling from bad memory) You mean to sau, by all accounts 90% of Americans are of could be on one of those lists. The answer was basically , yes sir.

Think about that.

Douglas Duprey ( Who probably is on several list and has this to say to watching agencies, Its "birdie" flip time )
Marshfield, VT ( I am sure you know where I am )
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 10:28 am EST

report this comment



People on the government's terrorist watchlist tried to buy guns 963 times last year, according to a report from the GAO. Federal authorities approved 865 of those purchases, including one case where a listee was able to buy more than 50 lbs. of explosives. "This is a glaring omision, and its a security issue," Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) told the New York Times. Lautenberg introduced legislation in 2007 to block sales to people on terror watch lists, but the measure was stopped under pressure from the National Rifle Association (NRA), whose position is that just because you're on a terrorist watch list is no reason to deny someone a gun.

NRA = funny.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 11:53 pm EST

report this comment



And rather civilly, we reach common ground.

""Je pense donc je suis" or "Cogito ergo sum" whichever you prefer...

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 11:10 pm EST

report this comment



Good question. Wish I had a good answer.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 10:57 pm EST

report this comment



So walt, what would you do?

ML Book Club
"Children of Jihad" by Jared Cohen

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 10:21 pm EST

report this comment



I don't necessarily think you can simply dismiss Bush's responsibility for what the entire mid east is like today by the suggestion that both "left and right have screwed up", even though that might - generally speaking - be true. His failings are monumental and we'll be paying the freight on them for the for a long, long time. I don't think that General McChrystal is being dishonest at all, but he's a military man and he sees - as he should - a military solution. I don't believe there is one and if there isn't, why put more Americans in danger? Maybe we need to re deploy the troops that are already there; maybe we need to have them disengage from what is essentially an internal conflict. The Taliban no longer harbor much of Al Qeada, they're in Pakistan. So what are we doing? Propping up an illegitimate president? Paying off his drug dealing brother via CIA funding? I don't know what the point is. Maybe that's what we need to do - rethink the mission entirely. And I think the "wars" - for lack of a better word - are no longer an extension of the cold war. Terrorism has the potential to disrupt the global economy...........nobody wants that so we're sort of in the thing together for better or worse. But the proliferation of IEDs outside of the Iraq/Afghanistan area is beginning to frighten everyone from South America, to Russia, to the Far East.......military solutions in all of these far flung areas are completely impossible.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 9:48 pm EST

report this comment



None, everyone knows what was done, we know what Bush did. We all know where we are at. The only thing that matters now, is what we do next. So to always bring up a fallacies and shortcomings in the Bush administration in defense of yet another blunder, only this time by your guy, is simply unacceptable. Do you know history? Do you know about the new deal? The Community Reinvestment Act? As much as it is "definitely not Obama's fault" it is not all Bushes fault. He screwed up, but the left and the right have screwed up for the last 100 years. Knowing this, we can learn from our mistakes, and make the decisions that matter today.

Walt, yes but.... It is bigger than Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq and Afghanistan are proxy wars, extensions of the cold war (sort of). Was Iraq about oil? Probably, but not for us. It was most likely to try to limit the supply to China, Russia and others. If it comes down to it walt, who would you rather be on top, if there can only be one? Is war horrible? Absolutely, but if we don't win these wars, we haven't seen anything yet.

Also, your right, military might will not necessarily win this war, but in putting our best resources and knowledge to use, we must include and trust the commanders. If they say they need 40,000 troops, I am pretty sure regardless of politics, they need 40,000 more troops. Have you met anyone in the military? They don't BS. There is no time for BS. So the military goes through great lengths to minimize BS, then the politicians BS all over the place. Whether or not you agree with the War or Bush, our "boots on the ground" need reinforcements based on what is happening today. If we are going to withdraw, they still need reinforcements today. Not after healthcare, not after run off elections, not after political fundraisers, right now, today.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 9:15 pm EST

report this comment



Again, Bush is not the president, Obama is. Anything Bush did wrong Obama is doing worse. I hardly see how the failures of Bush has anything to do with TODAY!

ML

-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 6:49 pm EST

Really showing your ignorance and lack of understandning with this statement. You really don't see how any of Bush's failures are related to the problems of today? So you think that all the problems that this country is facing were created by Obama only in the past 9 months? Must be nice to think that history has no effect on the present.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 8:26 pm EST

report this comment



I think our national perception that terrorism is an act of war has led us to the belief that the only logical response is large scale, military action. I'm not sure this makes any sense. Most of the IEDs killing Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan are primitive devices yet our overwhelming superiority in firepower capabilities doesn't make much difference. Terrorism is an international crime and should be treated as such - by the international community. If this week's bombings - in Pakistan and Afghanistan - that targeted mainly women and children, are not enough to earn a huge, global, non partisan condemnation, I don't know what would be. All we provide when we up the number of soldiers in a conflict against a nameless, faceless, unidentifiable enemy is the opportunity - and targets - for an endless Jihad
which is precisely what they want. There must be a better way.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 7:48 pm EST

report this comment



Melissa: The following is NOT a true statement. Look at the size of our armies and the percentage in the war theater.

I realize how detrimental leaving the people of Afghanistan would be ML. I truly do.. But I can't help wonder what kind of detrimental situation it will leave us in, if we send 40k troops that is being requested, it will not leave us with enough troops to protect us here, or to go on any thing else that may arise. We need more than just the US in this battle

I will agree Both Bush Presidents did not finish, but neither did President Clinton. However, that is the way polotics go at the top.

Countries, Generals, and our Congress is saying the President is taking to long. That tells me there is concern. Therefore, I am concerned.

M.B. > stated our troops are using "old" equipment. < Define old in military terms? I will say this, old and unsafe are NOT interchangeable when it comes to military preparediness.

Aslos, if Obama has not learned from the previous three Presidents, then he truly is in trouble. At this point he seems in trouble. Hemay bounch back but his numbers are falling and falling fast. The American people are losing faith in him.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 6:59 pm EST

report this comment



Walt, A psychiatrist said it not me, and if you read the book he makes good points without being rude. Oh and guess what, liberals are a minority in this country. Currently twice as many people identify themselves as conservatives (40%) than liberals (20%).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
So should I tell you to sit this one out? No. See the difference between you and I is, your of a dying breed, my ideology is on the up swing. You see despite what you think, we are not all genetically inclined to hate everyone and our own existence. You are the AYK of your side.

Melissa, So if bush procrastinates its bad, but if Obama does it, its good? That is the whole point of putting a general in charge that you trust, McCrystal, so that when he gives you his request, you don't have to think about it. Also, obama announced in April or May he had a Afghan strategy... Maybe we should increase military funding without adding all the pork. Or we could not waste time and money on cap-n-tax or obamacare (which is such a bad idea you donkey's cant even get it passed with a super-majority) and put a fraction of that money toward protecting the troops. And if it was bad to leave them without what they needed under Bush how is it not bad to do the same under Obama? You and walt are such hypocrites.

Again, Bush is not the president, Obama is. Anything Bush did wrong Obama is doing worse. I hardly see how the failures of Bush has anything to do with TODAY!

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 6:49 pm EST

report this comment



Plus ML, I still haven't gotten an answer to why Bush left them with less than what they needed if it is such a detriment to you now? Don't you realize if we had stayed the course there and not gone into take down a dictator, that they may all be coming home and it may have been won. We almost had them completely taken out and we left few troops there and let them suffer the consequences all these years.

GW, did Exactly what Daddy did during the gulf war, left before the job was done. Because Saudi Arabia requested we leave Iraq, just when General Schwarzkopf said he only need to rush in and they had Saddam, but their pals in Saudi Arabia apparently was calling the shots, and the scumbag was left to rein hell on people with out a care from daddy bush, history repeated from little bush in Afghanistan, now it's someone else's job to fix it and you and yours complain about his choices?? If it wasn't so ridiculous it would be laughable how pompous you act.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 5:36 pm EST

report this comment



Does anyone remember Vietnam? Does anyone realize that another super power tried this alone, russia, what happened with them?

We need more troops from other countries to stand up and help fight these SOB's.

If we don't have what we need for troops and the decision is made to send 40k, will they (congress) decide to start the draft again?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 5:29 pm EST

report this comment



I realize how detrimental leaving the people of Afghanistan would be ML. I truly do.. But I can't help wonder what kind of detrimental situation it will leave us in, if we send 40k troops that is being requested, it will not leave us with enough troops to protect us here, or to go on any thing else that may arise. We need more than just the US in this battle, and if the dissension in Afghanistan over the elections there doesn't bode well, it will leave us like sitting ducks in a country yet again that is going to be a civil war situation like Iraq.

I am not against war, I am in full support of our troops, I just want to make sure we are doing the right thing for them and for us. Our troops will need a lot of support, they now are using really really old helicopters to take them in to insurgent areas, it is going to cost a lot to keep them protected and safe, I have no problems with the costs to protect our troops, but is congress behind that? Will the far right be start complaining about it once we get there and start spending.. it always seems that no matter what Obama decides it's turned against him. Can't win that guy, no matter what he makes for a decision.

I'll tell you this, whatever he decides, sending more or bringing home our troops I support him, our country and our TROOPS!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 5:25 pm EST

report this comment



ML - We might have benefited from Bush having taken even more time off rather than needlessly invading Iraq. Apart from your usual middle-school level of name calling and the troll antics, how can you justify the president not taking his time with a decision as important as committing 40,000 troops to Afghanistan? And if liberalism is a mental disorder, what does that make Libertarianism? Most libertarians are home playing ***********, speculating about the real world of which they are not a viable part......that must make you feel bad and say the dumb things you consistently say.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 5:17 pm EST

report this comment



And Melissa, if you really think that a full withdrawl would help anyone over there... well see my last post (the bottom link).

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 5:01 pm EST

report this comment



Liberals: NEWSFLASH

Obama taking more time off than Bush!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091027/pl_politico/28764

Obama calls Afghanistan, "war of necessity".
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/Obama-to-Meet-Veterans-Talk-War-Strategy-53398437.html

According to Veteran Psychiatrist, "liberalism is a mental disorder"
http://townhall.com/columnists/LyleHRossiterJrMD/2006/12/04/the_liberal_mind_the_psychological_causes_of_political_madness

Walt, your head is so far up Obama's rear I am amazed you have not suffocated yet. Wake up! Nobody likes a snob.... well aside from Obammy supporters.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 4:56 pm EST

report this comment



Another Newsflash BS. The battle was in Afghanistan to begin with and Bush/Cheney Regime were frothing at the mouth so bad to get at Saddam Insane, they left them high and dry there. I don't recall you saying anything about that then, but you sure were backing Bush's choice to go into Iraq the entire time!! They were calling for more troops through out the 8 years, but they didn't get enough, they all kept being sent into Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20 but hindsight wasn't needed, it was blatantly obvious they were left with minimal needs and NONE OF YOU RIGHT WINGNUTS GAVE A RATS ARSE!!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 4:12 pm EST

report this comment



Newsflash BS if you read all of someone's post, you would see I said, they should bring them home its not worth it.. you guys' are just so quick to ARGUE you don't even have any reasoning factor for christ sake!

Don't even get into the man taking time to collect his thoughts during anything that's going on. Bush took so many trips to Crawford and Camp David, they can't even be counted.. grow up!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 4:07 pm EST

report this comment



BS - "I can't help you if you're not able to rationalize anything on your own"........whatever than means. I don't want or need you help, thanks.
You were dead wrong about Iraq - You can "stick with" whatever you want, Cheney does. He was dead wrong too. "Socialist sympathizer" and "left wing appeaser" mean nothing. Simplistic, right wing stereotyping is what you resort to when you don't have anything intelligent to say. We're used to it, happens all the time.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 4:06 pm EST

report this comment



not to mention that McCrystal is Obama's guy, he put him there.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 3:00 pm EST

report this comment



News flash for Melissa! We have soldiers already there. The General has asked for reinforcements, does Obama know more then the general? If you had a child over there would this policy be alright with you? Obama said that Afghanistan was the right war and that he would hunt and find and find Osama Bin Laden and give our troops what they need to win. Just another line from the great undecider. People are being shot at and blown up, he's playing golf and bowling for dollars in the White House. And Walt, I will stick with what I said. I can't help you if you are not able to rationalize anything on your own. If you wish to remain as a socialist sympathizer and left wing appeaser have at it in the end you will lose again just about this time in 2010 when the rest of the country realizes just how big of a mistake they made. How's that Hope and Change working for you?
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 2:13 pm EST

report this comment



BS - What is pathetic is YOUR (and the far right's) willingness to send more Americans into a war zone without evaluating the long-term consequences. Given the circumstances in Afghanistan, Obama is absolutely correct to take his time rather than commit troops because of the blather created by people like you. Your "Red Dawn" fantasy.......even as an example......was totally off the mark. And don't forget, it was your guys who cheered when we needlessly invaded Iraq and called anyone who questioned Bush/Cheney's decisions unpatriotic.......here you go again.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 6:39 am EST

report this comment



And I thought that your man Obama was all about the fight in Afghanistan?


I think he is doing the right thing waiting BS. We shouldn't go in while there's issues with the Gov't there.. in that, we should just pull out our guys. It's not worth it..
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 10:50 pm EST

report this comment



For those of you who slept through World History 101 here is a condensed version.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were:

1. The invention of beer, and
2. The invention of the wheel.

The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man.

These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution of the Hollywood actor, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide all the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, firemen, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, golfers, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who
want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history.

It should be noted that a liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

A conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 9:29 pm EST

report this comment



Walt, do you have your tin foil hat on again? I said Red Dawn was fiction and used it as an example. HELLO! Talk about garbage men! And Bennett, they were not called guns then they were called arms and muskets. Perhaps if nuclear weapons existed they could have included them too. Apparently this is about which sissy can talk the most nonsense you, Wally or Jest Stupid. And I thought that your man Obama was all about the fight in Afghanistan? But he would rather play basketball and golf then protect our troops already there. The frat house is in full party mode and our soldiers are being killed. While Barry plays, men and women are dying waiting for reinforcements. What a pathetic group you liberals are!
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 9:25 pm EST

report this comment



Evidently not so tired that you can't add your own garbage.
-- Posted by walt amses on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 7:55 pm EST

report this comment



With out contributing is such a farce. You people just look more and more ignorant every time you post your mantra's.

I have a great sense of humor AYK, I just don't laugh at crap slinging. It gets old tiring and its completely ridiculous, usually I ignore your ilk, after a while, it truly needs to be counter pointed. There is no truth to anything you have said for months.. notta thing. you can't back up any of your mantra, you just spew it like puke out of your disgruntled mouth.

By the way how's that Tea Party Express Going? Joe the Plumber jumped ship and has joined the Tea Party Patriots, because of mantra's like you speak daily, the ignorance from you and yours has other Conservatives running for the high hills from the likes of you and none none neo cons.. They want no relation to your kind.. none.. that's a hoot and a holler!!! They realize you and your mantra's and others like you, are bringing down the party and are only causing people to think you're all whackos LMAO


There's two Tea Parties now. Tea Party Express.. LOONS.. And Tea Party Patriots, separating from the loons.. love it!!!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 6:06 pm EST

report this comment



None - The only anti American protests I remember recently have been comprised of misguided Teabaggers railing against healthcare reform while repeating Medical Industrial Complex fabrications.........
-- Posted by walt amses on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 5:31 pm EST

report this comment



ML - So you're comparing your right to bear arms with the the Red Army's invasion of Afghanistan and the CIA's subsequent arms shipments to the Mujahadeen? You call me "hypocritical" for advocating the "opposite" in "my own land"......The opposite of what? You initiate name calling yet whine and cry like a baby when someone goes back at you? You seem to need to misrepresent what someone else says and then attack your own misrepresentation as though they've said it.
-- Posted by walt amses on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 5:25 pm EST

report this comment



Melissa, we are jumping off the cliff because it is the only way to escape dinking the kool-aid. We have a better chance to survive the fall... it's all over the second you swallow! Come on Melissa, walt, bennett, there is still time to run and jump!
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 5:10 pm EST

report this comment



Mellissa, I would rather jump off a cliff anyday as oppossed to going to rally's with the Liberals. I couldn't live with myself knowing I would have to participate in protests disgracing my country, while also demanding everything free from it, yet never contributing to it.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 4:58 pm EST

report this comment



Why dont Libs have a sense of humor?
Usually they get cranky when the truth is told
As stated in 2nd to last paragraph "Libs will angrily respond" and conservatives will ' Simply Laugh"
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 4:26 pm EST

report this comment



What is with the Liberal Mantra's? Are you people that ignorant to believe the moronic drivel you post? You do know it was created by Republicans just to keep people off topic.. it's idiotic, ditto head mentality.. I guess you don't mind following someone off the cliff, because that is where the "conservative party is and has been for a while" straight off a cliff, and looking dumber everyday.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 4:24 pm EST

report this comment



I own a gun for one reason...to irritate Liberals! I've found they get pretty busy when they are angry...know we need to teach them to turn it into constructive energy instead of the unproductive anit-american protests they participate in. You know none of them work when they spend all day, every day, holding up signs on the side of the street. Wait...did the libs go on strike?
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 4:03 pm EST

report this comment



Yeah Jest, I can cut and paste from others on here and some times from the articles themselves, but if I want to cut and paste something on topic to the discussion when I hit post it comes up blank. I've noticed sometimes, using quotations stops a cut and paste post when trying to quote someone.. I just don't get how she can post something that long and i'm positive she did not type it all out herself, it's an email she pasted in... Obvious from the last line to pass it on, and minimal errors if any, and that's not her style. Makes me wonder if it's true that she's a plant by the TA to keep the discussion going because she regurgitates such ridiculous neo conservative mantra's, some of us have a hard time not refuting it..

Hope you have a good evening too!!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 3:45 pm EST

report this comment



"I'd like to know how AYK can cut and paste a book, but I can't cut and paste a paragraph..."
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 1:00 pm EST

Hi Melissa. The instructions say you can't copy and paste from a word-processing program (like MS Word). It doesn't say you can't copy and paste (or cut & paste) from other protocols - like I just did when I selected and copied your post and then pasted it here.

Oh, and you're right about her garbage not being on topic. She just enjoys spewing her hatred and filth for her and Mel's amusement. The rest of us would do well to step over it as we would any other form of human excrement. The stench is hard to avoid, though, isn't it?

Have a nice evening.
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 3:32 pm EST

report this comment



Yeah Mel, Fairy Tales and Lies are right up you two's alleys..
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 2:53 pm EST

report this comment



I love it AYK!!!!!!!!
-- Posted by Mel on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 2:19 pm EST

report this comment



Not to mention, the cut and pastes are never on topic!!!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 1:04 pm EST

report this comment



I'd like to know how AYK can cut and paste a book, but I can't cut and paste a paragraph...
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 1:00 pm EST

report this comment



For those of you who slept through World History 101 here is a condensed version.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were:

1. The invention of beer, and
2. The invention of the wheel.

The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man.

These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution of the Hollywood actor, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide all the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, firemen, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, golfers, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who
want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history.

It should be noted that a liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

A conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 10:54 am EST

report this comment



So walt you admit it, the CIA needed to insure that the locals could "bear arms" so they could defeat tyranny. Yet you advocate the opposite in your own land. Interesting, but not surprisingly hypocritical wally. And I bet they gave them way more than .22 pistols and muzzle loaders.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 10:06 am EST

report this comment



Afghanistan is not the best example of what has been the point thus far BS, especially considering it was who they were - rather than what they had - that allowed them to stand up to the Soviet Union. Initially they were consistently slaughtered and continued to be until the CIA gradually upped the weapons ante to include surface to air missiles. ("Charlie Wilson's War" is a great history of that conflict and reads like a novel) "Red Dawn" is a fantasy in which a dozen teens do the same thing as the Mujahadeen......interestingly, it came out in 1984 - in the middle of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. But your overall point that firearms ownership is the vehicle to acquiring more complex weapons either from our own government or an invading army makes zero sense at all. It raises more questions than it answers.......like who? and how?
-- Posted by walt amses on Tue, Oct 27, 2009, 7:31 am EST

report this comment



BSA,

The second amendment doesn't discuss the right to bare guns- its about the right to bare ARMS (if the founding father's had meant guns then they would have said guns, but they were more broad than that.) If you believe in the government's right to restriction of chemical weapons and rocket launchers then you believe in its right to restrict any and all arms. You can't have it both ways.

Just in case you really haven't been paying attention, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH OUR RIGHT TO HAVE GUNS. I also think there need to be restrictions on what weapons we should have access to. So do you. Why is it so hard for you to accept that we're on the same side here?

And are you really asking me to look at the film, Red Dawn, for a realistic interpretation of anything, let alone a concrete and pragmatic interpretation of life during wartime? Talk about your teenager's ignis fatuus analysis of geo-politics. Gee whiz. Next you'll be telling me to watch Risky Business for tips on competing in the global marketplace.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 11:09 pm EST

report this comment



When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns! Melissa, laws do not stop criminals from getting guns. Laws do not stop criminals from doing anything. And Walt, I'm sorry that I spoiled your little gun control party. Bennett, your insight into what guns people should be allowed to have is vacant. Chemical weapons are not guns and yes people shouldn't own rocket launchers. But you and Walt apparently don't understand is that simple guns would enable you to get those items in an all out war. Take a look at the fictional movie RED DAWN or in the real world look to Afghanistan where the people there defeated the Soviet army by using their primitive weapons to obtain a state of the art arsenal. Yes they had help from us but not in the beginning. The point is that we are one of the few countries that has an armed citizenry and that is the way it was intended. If we are ever invaded by another country we would not have to beg our government to arm us. And Walt, how many other countries trusted their governments only to find themselves in the midst of slaughter, genocide and political corruption? Will it happen here, who knows? But just saying it won't isn't good enough, just ask the Jewish people or those in the Congo or Dar far! We are so lucky to be here in the USA, isn't it time we started acting that way?
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 9:58 pm EST

report this comment



If Guns are blamed for Crimes

then

are matches blamed for Arson?
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 4:04 pm EST
report this comment


No one has blamed guns for crime. The criminal able to get the gun finds it easier to commit a crime.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 5:50 pm EST

report this comment



'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE


1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United StatesConstitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 4:45 pm EST

report this comment



9 1 1

Governemnt sponsored Dial-a-prayer
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 4:06 pm EST

report this comment



If Guns are blamed for Crimes

then

are matches blamed for Arson?
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 4:04 pm EST

report this comment



Guns have 2 enemies

RUST and POLITICIANS
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 4:03 pm EST

report this comment



Why do people think Gun Control means, no guns at all? Is that the only way YOU can control criminals from having guns?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 2:01 pm EST

report this comment



"For Bennett, try calling the police at 2:00 a.m. from Bear Swamp Road or somewhere in the Northeast Kingdom. How long do you think the response time would be?... And Bennett again believes that the staes can over ride the 2nd amendment.

BSA,

I don't have any problem with the second amendment... what gave you the impression that I do? I do think there need to be limits on what weapons the public should be allowed access to (and there are.) I personally don't think we (the public) should be allowed to have nukes or chemical weapons for example (even though these are a much more "realistic" deterrent to government oppression (spoken of by ML) than handguns and 30-06's.) We the people have decided to opt in the direction of sanity and of safety rather than in the direction of freedom in this regard. In many ways these arguments are already moot. We've been regulating what weapons the public has access to for almost 100 years.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Oct 26, 2009, 1:05 am EST

report this comment



Walt, where you work wasn't the point, the point was you don't let others dictate to you. Thats why contract negotiations.

I don't believe I have called anybody names in this "chat". IF people can't be disciplined enough to not call names, I am glad they don't own guns. :) So, I should feel better because some want to dismantle the US Constitution?

I never said you called me anything walt, My naming myself was in "jest" and am quite happy being all of those names along with many others. :)

My point was obvious lost on you, and as I said at the bottom . Hopefully people will learn from what I wrote including myself.

I think overall this conversation was better than a lot on here.

Sometimes people need to be called out, it makes them and others aware of their actions.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 7:54 pm EST

report this comment



IMHO, the "loophole"argument is a load of bull...
Established firearms dealers are well documented with the ATF, and local gun shows don't require proof of "dealership" in order to rent an open space to a vendor...

If as a private collector of 20 or so firearms for sale, I spoke to the person with spaces for rent in the show's venue, I would be under no legal obligation to divulge any sales information to any government agency... Obviously, if fully automatic class 3 firearms were for sale, the seller must be in possession of a class 3 permit to begin with, so that narrows it down a bit...

But as I see it, the Government is looking to prosecute individuals who sell firearms to other individuals that result in being used during the commission of a crime...

They tried that with attempting to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the criminal use of their products, and it didn't work...




v
-- Posted by Donald McKenna on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 7:04 pm EST

report this comment



Your Welcome, I know you don't know any better ;)

Its just nice to more diversity on this site.... haha

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 6:40 pm EST

report this comment



ML - Ah yes, you've "covered a lot of ground today", you, BS and Doug are a wonderful team. We should all feel much better with the three of you protecting us from the government as well as all foes, foreign and domestic.
-- Posted by walt amses on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 6:14 pm EST

report this comment



It's funny.. I've seen a whole lot of name calling from everyone of you, so calling out walt is a hoot and a holler really!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 5:58 pm EST

report this comment



Aha! Your medicine does not taste good does it walt. I think this is one of the few times a leftie was cornered like that, normally it is a righting swinging with their back to the wall. I feel like we covered a lot of ground today. haha

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 5:18 pm EST

report this comment



BS/Doug/ML - What I do and where I work have nothing to do with any of this; name calling goes both ways - I didn't start it. I do participate though. Perhaps I shouldn't but unfortunately, I'm not that disciplined. There seemed to be a fairly reasonable discussion going on at one point, which abruptly ended when BS and AYK got involved. This is pretty consistently the way it goes. I think I was pretty much on the topic until the whole debate got derailed. The NRA has gone to great lengths to create a culture of fear and paranoia in America - each of you has demonstrated at some point that you agree with their assessment. And just for the record, Doug, I never called you "dumb, ignorant, woodchuck Vermonter"; I never said that because I was older I was "more intelligent or wiser" and certainly not "benign"; and I'm not trying to "ram anything down anybody's throat"........I may spew some "socialist, left-wing doctrine" at times though, nobody's perfect.
-- Posted by walt amses on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 4:04 pm EST

report this comment



If you look back through Walt's posts you will see that he shrugs off what other people write. Instead of reading it, absorbing the content, thinking about a response that addresses what was said he blast off with that's nonsense. If he is a teacher I can understand how the schools are graduating kids who don't know much about anything. When I graduated High School and then college a passing grade had to be 70% or above, now it's 60%. Before you know it our kids are only going to be half right to pass. This is a testament to how people like Walt teach our kids. But that's OK because Walt knows more about the Constitution than the people who wrote it. I'm glad that my kids are done with school. I can't understand how these people live in America when Canada is so close.
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 2:26 pm EST

report this comment



Walt, Why do you hate your life so much? Why do you strive to bring the wealthy down to your level instead of lifting those in poverty up? Why do you shrug off logic and reason as "regurgitated, boiler plate Libertarian nonsense" (I must have got it from all the many libertarian news media or talk radio sources out there). Heck, your talking points come straight from MSNBC. Did you too, get a tingle up your leg when Obama was elected? What motivates you? Is it your hate for things you can not understand? Or just your hate of people who do not agree with you? Again, I never claimed to be smart, you brought it up. I think I have a lot of learning to do, but there is nothing that you can teach me old friend.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 12:53 pm EST

report this comment



"The philosophies of one age have become the absurdities of the next, and the foolishness of yesterday has become the wisdom of tomorrow. "
- Sir William Osler

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 12:43 pm EST

report this comment



Walt, as I looked back over this heap of trash conversation, in where you seem to claim you want an "intulectual" (yes, I know I spelled it wrong. Duh!). I see you doing more naming calling, hate mongering, stereotyping, then most others. In fact, I will say your ass is showing.

I will fight for my my right to be a dumb, ignorrant, woodchuck, minion Vermonter who believes the Fed's can take my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands. I will firmly believe the Constitution is not out of date, Elitist will always get better then those in the trenches. The States are soverign, they give power to the Federal gov't, they don't have a right to take it.

The fact that you are older does NOT make you more intelligent, wiser, or benign. Hell, if you have a college degree it does not even make you better educated. The fact that there are people like you, whom like to belittle others for not carrying your mantra after you have tried to force it down their throat is reason enough not to trust and to fight back for my beliefs and rights.

I read your stuff and when called out you come up with lame excuse to bypass the specifics and talk general, or you go around the subject to start another (others do this as well). The plain fact is you are gulity of doing more of what you accuse others of doing then they are. M.L. states he has 150 book in his house that he has read or been exposed to, he stated his IQ, and stated other personal telling stuff to prove points. Yet, he is laughed at, why? How many people have even read that many books today, how many youth are motivated to be involved? Famous and infamous leaders of the world have been much younger than he, yet they were considered "great". I am not defending M.L. so much as I am pointing out holes in your arguements and calling you a hypocrite, along with others.

I am no saint, I do the same but I try NOT to. The fact is you spew more left wing , socialism doctrine then anybody else on TA and if anybody disagrees with you, you have fits. Perhaps, you stop teaching and start learning, trust the people of Marshfield will not ***** you on the next teacher contracts. Stop fighting for God, Country, and Family. Roll over play dead as you wish others to do.

I hope I have made some valid points, that many including myself can learn from.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 11:00 am EST

report this comment



ML - "We really need to get on the same page, soon it will be too late"........Too late for what, exactly? The country? Which needs to be "saved" by you and the "liberty" associated with owning an arsenal? What is consistently astonishing is your sudden embrace of whining victimhood whenever it strikes your fancy - usually after you've been spanked for your boring condescension and urgent need to appear smarter than you actually are........you look down your nose at anyone who fails to recognize your intellect or your twisted logic and then weep pathetically when they give a little back. Sorry to break it to you but you're not an intellectual because you regurgitate, boiler plate Libertarian nonsense; own a couple of books or did well on standardized tests. If you were even remotely bright, no one would know any of these things about you. You're a charter member in the "Not Get It Hall of Fame".......
-- Posted by walt amses on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 9:20 am EST

report this comment



Why is it the ones who are on history's side, the ones who are for liberty and freedom, the ones who are trying to do damage control are always branded crazy, fanatic, dumb, Bush loving, negro hating, poor people stomping, civil liberty raping, right wing nut jobs? Has the state of our being deteriorated to such a degree that the dumb masses actually think the ones who really want to make things better are their sworn enemies? Now I am not talking left and right, I am talking right and wrong, logic instead of emotion, truth vs distortions, and freedom over tyranny.

We really need to get on the same page, soon it will be too late. And walts world of elite's reigning in control on individual lives just might actually materialize. I think the point we (those on the side of unadulterated liberty) try to make is, it us only we the people who can protect freedom and liberty and preserve it for future generations, not the government.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Oct 25, 2009, 8:29 am EST

report this comment



A - Evidently you missed "effing fantasy". Admittedly on the crude side, but yikes, BS sounds like he's taking the Cub Scout oath.
-- Posted by walt amses on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 5:59 pm EST

report this comment



"By being self reliant, confident psychologically and physically prepared our goal is to sustain our republic."
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 2:51 pm EST


-- Posted by walt amses on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 3:22 pm EST


I couldn't find anything in Walt's reply that addresses the above statement by BS Avenger.

You know, you guys need to get together and have a beer. Make sure you invite ML.
I know, that will never happen.

Alright, go on.


..
-- Posted by A None on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 5:30 pm EST

report this comment



eternal*

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 3:58 pm EST

report this comment



None, where does your knowledge stem from? Moveon.org, CNN, NPR, Owl Gore? Books are the enternal keepers of knowledge,
and your ignorance is bliss...

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 3:56 pm EST

report this comment



BS - What's continually startling is your need to ignore what a person actually says; replace it with your paranoia-infused world view; and subsequently accuse them of being responsible for the necessity of your thinking what you think. You're not protecting or sustaining anything, it's an effing fantasy. It' not 200 years ago. We don't have a population of 2.5 million. And we don't have "well regulated militias"........maybe your sense of reasoning has been "sucked out" by the NRA's propaganda. ..........do you have one of those triangular little hats too?
-- Posted by walt amses on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 3:22 pm EST

report this comment



Wow, ML, over 150 books? A veritable library of Congress you got there. It would probably help if you actually read those books. Really impressive when one relates their perceived intellect to the number of books one owns.
When you are done self actualizing, please go to your room.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 3:02 pm EST

report this comment



Yup.

And there was no question about regulated militias. You were throwing bs numbers about, then you started bashing fox news. However, They would have supported it as an individual right, so long as one being did not use a weapon explicitly to further their progression of needs. But to use a weapon to protect yourself, as a being, I dont see that they would be morally opposed... Just my take.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 2:56 pm EST

report this comment



Walt, Again you prove that you have no reasoning powers. It is not my gun that represses the government's total control over me, it is our guns and the 10 amendments to the constitution. While you and yours derive power by trying to belittle your opponents we have the power. By being self reliant, confident psychologically and physically prepared our goal is to sustain our republic. Your lofty goal is to turn us all into sheep, fed, clothed, nursed and controlled by your mother government. You argue against our history as a nation and can't rationalize what little freedom you have left and push for more government intervention into your life. Apparently, any motivation you once had has been sucked out by an ideological idea somewhere, sometime planted in your head and designed to make you give up your natural born rights and replace them with your mommy, the government. I feel sorry for people like you!
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 2:51 pm EST

report this comment



"only a small percentage of the population" achieves self actualization? And you - ML - are one of the lucky few?

"well regulated militia" was the topic of this discussion before you held your breath for attention.
-- Posted by walt amses on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 2:32 pm EST

report this comment



Self-actualization is the summit of Maslow's motivation theory. It is about the quest of reaching one's full potential as a person. Unlike lower level needs, this need is never fully satisfied; as one grows psychologically there are always new opportunities to continue to grow.

Self-actualized people tend to have motivators such as:

Truth
Justice
Wisdom
Meaning
Self-actualized persons have frequent occurrences of peak experiences, which are energized moments of profound happiness and harmony. According to Maslow, only a small percentage of the population reaches the level of self-actualization.

What "well regulated militia question"?

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 2:12 pm EST

report this comment



Unfortunately ML, "self actualized" is frequently confused with not needing to learn anything new, having "arrived" and all. But I'm glad you've read Maslow even if you've completely missed the point of Humanistic Psychology........I wonder where good old Abe or Carl Rogers would have come down on the "well regulated militia" question?
-- Posted by walt amses on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 2:01 pm EST

report this comment



Walt you should read the book, "Toward a Psychology of Being" By Abraham Maslow. Or at a minimum google "maslow's hierarchy of needs". You, and most libs, are stuck towards the bottom (safety or Social needs). I know that I have reached self-actualization. So say what you will, I wont lose any sleep.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 1:30 pm EST

report this comment



Yes ML, of course, I must have had you mixed up with me.......It must have been me who expressed what an asset I was to this website; touted my "library", bragged about my IQ level and my SAT scores while demonstrating an almost total intellectual void......your response - as many of your responses - is the equivalent of "nya nya".
-- Posted by walt amses on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 1:22 pm EST

report this comment



"People with low self esteem frequently overcompensate with elevated opinions of themselves."

Like you Walt?

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 1:09 pm EST

report this comment



My game is "nonsense" and I have "reasoning problems" BS, and you truly believe you're "keeping government in check" by owning a gun? Either you're monumentally untethered to reality or you believe that individuals right to firearms should be completely unlimited as to size, type and number......machine guns, rocket launchers, etc......because your chances of "keeping government in check" are decidedly slim otherwise. I don't think all gun owners are paranoid, by the way. You'd know that if you'd been following the discussion. I do believe the National Rifle Association victimizes a percentage of gun owners with the fear and paranoia that the government is planning on "jack booted thugs" coming to pry their guns "from their cold, dead hands". Creating a culture of fear in the United States is stupid, dangerous and a lie. Your posts indicate you're fine with the idiotic notion that any rational discussion of gun laws constitutes proof of this delusion.
-- Posted by walt amses on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 1:02 pm EST

report this comment



Walt, You are not interested in what other people think or know. Your game is to bash your opponent with whatever nonsense you have for the day. Trying to make gun owners out as paranoid is stupid. I guess your blind affection for Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama is a rational stance believing that these people actually care for you? And the blind trust in politicians as though they may grant us our natural rights to be humans, like gods. Well not so! Politicians have no moral standing in the game at all. They work for us not the other way around. It is people like you and yours who have given politicians the the right and the means to trample over individual rights for the good of the collective. For centuries people have fallen in line for dictators, despots, crooks and politicians as they are the saviors of us poor humans. Because Boy Scouts are prepared, does that make them paranoid? Because hospitals have supplies to deal with the injured, does that make them paranoid about injury? You obviously have reasoning problems. The world is a dangerous place and it is not for the weak. Being prepared means not lying down for the struggle ahead. It means meeting the enemy head on whether it's my government or a tyrant or both. An armed society keeps it government in check. Do you think we have lasted this long because the government has allowed it to happen? It's because we are free to take on our government through the amendments to the constitution and it is every Americans duty to see that that does not change no matter how many left wing loons come along.
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 12:45 pm EST

report this comment



If you read what I wrote,I did not suggest "elite" was limited to one party or one way of thinking; only that the elites in charge for much of the last quarter century - beginning with Reagan - were from the right. I'm surprised with your vast "library" that reading a simple TA post baffles you so. Can you imagine a time when it would be possible
to vote for someone who is not an "elite"......for president, that is? I can't.
-- Posted by walt amses on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 12:45 pm EST

report this comment



ML - People with low self esteem frequently overcompensate with elevated opinions of themselves; grandiosity to the extreme; and the misguided notion that others feel the same way. Your opinions are no more or less valuable than anyone else's on this or any other site. Evidently you're not missing your "liberty" to fantasize. Getting over yourself would be a good beginning.
-- Posted by walt amses on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 12:40 pm EST

report this comment



Oh yea, Obama and Hil are both "elitist". So why did you vote for them? And I challange that they are "mostly right of far right". Every dem I know is a elitist. What about ol Billy, Carter, Johnson, Truman, and Roosevelt? Just average Americans im sure...

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 12:39 pm EST

report this comment



I said I worked away from home, not left home. Meaning for 8 weeks a year I worked 100 miles from my comfort zone, no mom n pa, just me. I didnt want anyone to have to pay for anything for me, I was resourceful and found a job, is that wrong? Maybe you will see that at 15 I was twice as mature as most here, who still want hand outs and feel like society owes them.

As far as me and topics revolving around me, I just call it like I see it, and people notice. TA probably like me posting, im good for web traffic and advertising.

The only thing I am missing is my liberty, You never wanted it so you clearly do not miss it.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 12:28 pm EST

report this comment



ML - I'm glad that you explained your perceptions that a couple of random numbers; a "library" in your home; and the immense perspective of having lived "in four states" provides you with the basis to spew your nonsense. You will eventually learn that "generations" don't run things; the "elites" from generations run things, and for much of the last quarter century those elites have come from the right and far right. Do you ever notice ML that whatever the topic (gun control for instance) the discussion usually winds up revolving around you and your fragile ego? Leaving home at 15 has certain risks associated with it, you should look up what some of them are and see if they have any implication in your life and your expectation that strangers will provide you with the validation you're so sorely missing.
-- Posted by walt amses on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 12:06 pm EST

report this comment



By simple looking at life expectancy, and infant mortality, you ignore many other factors. Our obesity problem for one. There is more to it, we smoke a alot, drink alot, crash our cars the most, eat like its going out of style, have "1 million deaths from guns every 30 years", and we use perscriptions to fix everyting. Dispite all this, there are few countries who are healthier (most claim we rank 42 but that is just not true, I see no data supporting that, my best estimate is 14th) and its not because of Health care, it is because they care about their health more as individuals than do Americans.

Our top 5 causes of death are:
1) Heart Diseases (eating unhealthy)
2) Cancer (smoking and drinking)
3) Stroke (eating unhealthy and percription meds)
4) Chronic Lung Disease
5) Accidents (ie cars, bikes, atv's, sky diving)
(see link below)

So you see, the top 5 deaths are all generally self inflicted problems. Not poor quality health care.

This site doesn't really back up my point but its still worth checking out.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa.php?topic=272

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 12:06 pm EST

report this comment



"Best in the world" for a select few; for the rest - not so much. Universal healthcare is an issue in exactly one developed country, ours. The rest cover everyone with a generally healthier, more satisfied population. Granted you have to wait for some elective procedures but it sounds worth it to most of those covered and would probably seem worth it to most Americans too. Fear is the main motivator to avoid change - and for some (republicans and the right) the primary fear is that it might work.
-- Posted by walt amses on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 11:34 am EST

report this comment



None None, What does my age matter? Experience? That didn't matter when you voted for Obama.... and I am 25. I have a library in my home of over 150 books, all history and non-fiction, with few exceptions, "Ishmael", "1982" and "Enders Game" to name a few.

Your generation has done a great job running this country haven't they, $14 trillion in debt and all, 1 in 6 in poverty. If only I held the same knowlage as you, I too could ***** up over and aver in my life a F future generations.

I have worked away from home since I was 15, stating as a "compensated volunteer". I have lived in 4 states since high school, most of you here have never left, never getting any other perspective besides what you are familar with in you comfort zone here.

Walt- you brought it up. And no I think people should think what they want, its when they start acting on those thoughts and it screws others is when I take issue.

ML

ps more on "the best health" care to come...
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, 11:32 am EST

report this comment



ML, what do you mean "best in the world"? are we in the top ten of life expectancy? top five in infant mortality rates?
What would be rationed to keep costs down? Sounds like competition--tough to feel sorry for companies that are raking in record profits, perhaps a bit of cost control would be a good thing.
and who is distributing the wealth? 1% of Americans own us, and China owns them...
-- Posted by Jim Richards on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 11:38 pm EST

report this comment



BS - When I quoted the statistic of 1 million dead in 30 years I said it was a combination of homicide and suicide. The suicides are just as dead. I'm not doing any "emotional crying" and I'm not advocating gun bans necessarily - as I've said several times. Just looking for an intelligent chat which is obviously not your forte. You evidently need the fantasy that someone's going to forcibly disarm you; enslave you and need to kill you in order to justify your weird preoccupation with remaining sufficiently paranoid........ why is that? Why are the ones WITH the guns always afraid?
-- Posted by walt amses on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 10:17 pm EST

report this comment



You know what is funny? In an attempt to show how smart he is and informing everyone on his SAT score of 2100, ML revealed his age. What are you about 21? 22? SAT didn't change to the 2400 scale until 2005.
Wow, ML, so much worldly experience. How many elections have you even voted in? 1? You sure must watch a lot of Fox News to have so much political and social knowledge and have such informed opinions. All you know about Bush or Clinton you must have learned in social studies class.
Hilarious. Your mom just called...it is time to come in for dinner. Don't forget to clean your room too!
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 9:34 pm EST

report this comment



http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm

And Walt, Here's the statistics from the Justice Dept. for a 10 year period. If you study the chart almost 50% of all of them were suicides. I think it would be fair to say that these people were probably not in their right mind and would have found a way to kill themselves anyway with or without guns. It doesn't matter, we have the 2nd amendment. All your emotional crying won't change over 225 years. You lose!
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 8:43 pm EST

report this comment



http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

Here's a couple sites for Walt, maybe he can learn something for a change. And Walt, the Revolutionary War started when the British were sent into the colonies to round up and confiscate the firearms of the colonialists. I know you lefties would bow to the almighty government if they came after your gun if you have one, but there are people in America who would rather die then live in servitude. I realize you are not one of them.
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 8:30 pm EST

report this comment



So ML, everything would be fine if people stopped saying anything you didn't agree with? I think most smart people, by the way, don't feel it's necessary to talk about either their IQ or SAT scores.
-- Posted by walt amses on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 7:52 pm EST

report this comment



Ok, I am going to break it down,

1) "Health care in America is far from perfect (in fact with premiums out pacing the growth of anything but Beck's chin-count one could argue it's broke)--yet if you say we need to fix it, your a comi-fascist-lib-socialist. Talk stops and grand claims (ie death-panels) begin."

I agree its far from perfect, but its the best in the world. Again, distinguish the difference between "best" and "most available". I agree, we need reform, but what they want to do here is the most expensive piece of legislation since WWII. 1,000,000,000,000 seconds is over more than 31,000 years. A trillion dollars in 10 years is what it will cost under the current proposal, all that money to cover at best 40 million people. That's $250,000.00 in 10 years, per person. That does not sound like any sort of fix to me, no matter how well intended the legislation is. There are far better methods that could at least be attempted before spending a trillion dollars.

In the plan, you can not deny in any logical or factual manner, rationing will take place, as a method of cost control. So if you don't meet the "spending requirements" and you are denied a procedure and die, what would you call that? Is that any better that what we have now?

2) I never said I was against a background check to buy fire arms.

3) "Perhaps we'd be better off if we remembered that in fact, we are all Americans and care for the prosperity of our country (and the people in it-regardless of any labels)-geez well, maybe we'd fix some problems,and realize we are kinda alike, rather than simply ridicule anyone who proposes an opposing idea."

I agree, so lets stop demonizing the rich, stop wealth redistribution, evolve welfare, fix SS, get spending under control, stop apologizing for America, get rid of teachers unions, and hold our politicians responsible for their actions.

4)"...thud (sound of me jumping from my soap box)"
Good example.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 7:00 pm EST

report this comment



You made your point better than I ever could. It is important to remember that we have more in common than the the talking heads would want us to believe. Health care in America is far from perfect (in fact with premiums out pacing the growth of anything but Beck's chin-count one could argue it's broke)--yet if you say we need to fix it, your a comi-fascist-lib-socialist. Talk stops and grand claims (ie death-panels) begin. Someone suggests that perhaps convicted felons shouldn't be able to buy guns without a check first and the cries of 2nd amendment-treading ensues.
Perhaps we'd be better off if we remembered that in fact, we are all Americans and care for the prosperity of our country (and the people in it-regardless of any labels)-geez well, maybe we'd fix some problems,and realize we are kinda alike, rather than simply ridicule anyone who proposes an opposing idea.
...thud (sound of me jumping from my soap box)
-- Posted by Jim Richards on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 4:49 pm EST

report this comment



Thats a BS answer.... But whatever, continue to make my point.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 3:35 pm EST

report this comment



...an American.
-- Posted by Jim Richards on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 2:58 pm EST

report this comment



Walt, I never claimed to be "smart", but while you bring it up, I did get a 129 on a "state administered" IQ test and I recieved a 2100 on my SAT's. So thanks for pointing it out.

Now, you lefties point out fox is not a "fares poorly with the general criteria we use to evaluate news organizations" then you continue to bash Beck, Hannity, Bill O. I hate to break it to you lefties, but these shows are opinion shows, not "news broadcasts". If you want to be fair, which you don't, you would compare shows starting before 5pm on each network. Dobbs is not different then Beck he is just less effective at punching wholes in the Admin.

And you, Walt, rag on me for being off topic. What is this?
If Obama is not a Socialist like you claim, and he is not a capitalist, what is he?

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 11:45 am EST

report this comment



Fox fares poorly with the general criteria we use to evaluate news organizations - objectivity and credibility - because they have neither. A huge number of righties simply repeat what Beck, Hannity, or O'Reilly said and, when asked clarifying or in-depth questions, just stare at you like cows. The are commanded to be angry and they comply. Asked what they're mad about and they don't quite know but it has something to do with people wanting to "take their guns away"; kill their grandparents; or "Socialism". The ratings are the name of the game......even the folks on this site frequently tout Fox's high ratings as though it translates into legitimacy rather than popularity...........unreality TV.
-- Posted by walt amses on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 8:52 am EST

report this comment



...and in tangent-ville, where was fox's outrage over lack of transparency in government in say, 2001-2008?
also, careful of huge percentages given by lou dobbs...he tends to forget to give sources and the vast majority of americans watch him only to feel more articulate and well educated.
-- Posted by Jim Richards on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 8:28 am EST

report this comment



I do not get how a sting to enforce an already existing law infringes on rights? They are looking for those who sell guns illegally. How is this a "blow to gun owners"? It is no more shocking than when liquor control sends in minors to try to buy booze under age at the local store.
I would worry more about who took our logic, reason, and independent thought-process before I worried about this, which the author himself says is widely unnecessary.
-- Posted by Jim Richards on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 8:11 am EST

report this comment



HAHAHAHA
Fox News Prevails, the Press stick together in teh end
The White House had a press round-robin question seesion, and Obammy said everyone in teh rpess could go, except Fox News,,,,welll, guess what, the other news agencies, CNN NBC ABC and CBS said, if FOX cant go, then they wont go !!!! Hee Haw the press finally told off teh Obammy Admin (Big grin)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It hasn't hit the web yet but it will shortly. Pay Czar Ken Feinberg sent out a memo to the WH press corp advising of a round robin discussion on exec pay cuts. He specifically said Fox News was not invited to participate. Are you kidding me? Are we being governed by school children?

To their credit, the other News organizations refused to participate unless Fox was included
http://www.tigerforums.com/free-speech-alley/91066-pay-czar-says-no-fox-news.html
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 10:44 pm EST

report this comment



BS - "My" statistic of a million Americans dead in 30 years is difficult to grasp and I'm talking from anti gun "talking points" while you cite a ridiculous 2 million times per year where guns saved lives? You've got to be joking, right. So while guns were killing a million people they were actually saving the lives of 60 million? And segments of the military would "break away" and sustain a "war with our own government"? Do you have any concept of how nuts this is?
-- Posted by walt amses on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 9:31 pm EST

report this comment



ML - I know it's extremely important for you to feel smart and it's frustrating for you a lot of the time because you're not; and you need to do your normal name calling...... but "announcing" that you agree with Lou Dobbs doesn't mention the actual topic that's been under discussion now does it? No one cares that you agree with Lou Dobbs. Where's the militia ML? Are you talking about the guys running around in the woods down in Georgia? Or out in Idaho? Who "train" in camo and all that manly stuff? They're defending the country? I feel much safer now. With them armed to the teeth and you running your mouth our freedoms are intact I guess. Perhaps you should READ IT AGAIN ML.....James Madison - 1789
maybe something has changed in the last 200 years or so......
-- Posted by walt amses on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 9:25 pm EST

report this comment



I can't take it anymore. Walt is repeating everything he says from Handgun Control talking points. At the time the 2nd amendment was written muskets were state of the art weopons. Nothing has changed except the technology of firearms. If the government was to attack it people over gun control segments of the military would break away to defend Americans from their own government. The military is made up of our sons, daughters, faters and brothers. They have the access to equipment capable of sustaining a war with our own government. Does the civil war ring any bells? Now is has been proven by numerous studies that privately owned firearms are used at least 2 million times per year to save lives. For Bennett, try calling the police at 2:00 a.m. from Bear Swamp Road or somewhere in the Northeast Kingdom. How long do you think the response time would be?
As far as Walt's number of 1 million firearms deaths in 30 years is unproveable. Then there is each state constitution. Vermont's article dealing with firearms is stronger then the federal constitution. And Bennett again believes that the staes can over ride the 2nd amendment. Can they also over ride search and siesure laws, free speech or any of the other individual rights granted in the ten amendments?
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 9:15 pm EST

report this comment



Its ML

I don't really care. Bring it on. PMD is a joke, incapable of a logical argument, and regresses into submission basically. Thrashing out irrationally, erratically, and irresponsibly. Instead of debate, PMD brings hate. This is not a peer reviewed english thesis, it is the internet. I write in thoughts more than sentences, this might be where your getting confused PMD. Why is it the right who "has nothing better to do but sit here on this site" when there are far more on the left here regularly? Relax.

Now, out with the trash.

I wanted to announce that I agree with the first half of Lou Dobbs tonight. I know, I too was shocked. He reports:

-Since the White Houses War on FOX began, ratings on FOX News are skyrocketing, further.

-Last month was the largest drop in a Presidents approval rating ever. Since 1951 NO OTHER PRESIDENT has lost so much support in a month, not even BUSH.

-"This is it?" As the white house reports that we have seen all we will see from the stimulus.

- Dobbs actually questioned the "30 plus Czars and the constitutionality".

-And they reported that for the first time "most Americans want immigration reform, and they want the aliens here now gone".

You you F'in up when CNN is against you, and your Obama.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 7:55 pm EST

report this comment



I often disagree with Jeff Perkins AKA - ML. This time he has a valid point however: You don't have to read what he writes, Purple. His words produce no sound unless you read them out loud. He and everyone else, can have their say on this blog. Do you feel compelled to read his every post?

/
-- Posted by Olde Man on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 7:29 pm EST

report this comment



Getting retards like you off my monitor is hardly sensorship.

If you put half the effort in to learning the English language as you do posting pointless blather on every topic, perhaps we could understand a small portion of your rants.
-- Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 5:02 pm EST

report this comment



Another lib wanting another person to fix their problems. How about you just stop coming here to TA then you wont have to read all the words you would rather sensor.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 4:47 pm EST

report this comment



what a constructive comment.

I wish I could bo so blind and arrogant.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 4:39 pm EST

report this comment



TA, GIVE US THE OPTION TO BLOCK THE MORONS FROM OUR SCREENS!!!!!

*I can copy and paste the same nonsense across every article too*

.
-- Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 3:42 pm EST

report this comment



READ IT AGAIN WALT.

I'll make it easy for you.

"James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment."

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 2:06 pm EST

report this comment



I did read the info on the website and it's interesting for sure. I think some of the comments from the 18th century are somewhat dated and some more modern comments - left and right - have a great deal to do with politics. But maybe Germans or Chinese threatened their power structure more than I think we do; perhaps Hitler and Mao were extremely paranoid. Again - I feel I have to keep saying this - I'm not advocating gun bans; I understand - to a certain extent anyway - the traditions of hunting and gun ownership in general. What I'm having a hard time with is the notion that us being armed makes as much of a difference as it did almost 250 years ago. It's turning out to be a far nicer day than it was predicted so I'm headed out to the Winooski for a while to see if anything's willing to eat a fly. As always I appreciate a conversation with you whether or not we agree - you always have an interesting point of view.
-- Posted by walt amses on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 12:20 pm EST

report this comment



Also, the assertion that a militia of any type is only meant to defend against internal agressors is false. It was also meant to defend against foreign attackers. I think now it could be discriminatory toward females. When it was written into our State Constitution it was not so. The National Guard is its own being and does not or should not be construde as a militia or defenders of our personal rights.

Walt did you read the link I posted about what in/famous had to say about preventing people from defending themselves, with weapons?

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 10:35 am EST

report this comment



Douglas - I'm not sure all 17 year old males know this.........I didn't, although I get into the movies cheaper so it probably doesn't include me. Isn't it discriminatory regarding "males"? Where does the National Guard fit in to this equation? Does the militia stand in opposition to the guard? And if they do, it would seem to me they're out gunned and they should be, right? Or do you think every male over 17 in Vermont should be equipped to fight the National Guard?
-- Posted by walt amses on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 10:25 am EST

report this comment



In Vermant all males aged 17 and above ( it could have a upper limit) are part of its malita.

Douglas Duprey
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 9:49 am EST

report this comment



The phrase "well regulated" meant, "well equiped", not gov't restricted. Weapons of mass destruction are not allowed to be owned by the geeral public. Automatic weapons require special background check, finger prints and have to be ok'd by BATF. The entire process takes about 6-months to a year. If you are allowed. If you want to buy a Automatic weapon made after a certain date (note sure what that date is) you can't, unless you have a class 3 ( I think) FFL.

Seems to me the gov't regulates quite well.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 9:47 am EST

report this comment



And - by the way - who's in a "well regulated militia" anyway? If you believe that's the reason for gun ownership, shouldn't everyone with a gun be required to join? How else will they be "well regulated". Of course this doesn't make any sense at all. But - if it doesn't - what does? Hunting, target shooting, collecting.......fine. Unlimited ownership of mass quantities of automatic weapons? Grenades? Rocket launchers? Probably not. So there's more-than-likely somewhere between the NRA's "no talking about guns allowed" mantra; and what you all seem to be saying the left wants: "complete restriction of firearms"........this is the place we can meet and chat about how to have fewer Americans die in gun violence.
-- Posted by walt amses on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 9:06 am EST

report this comment



Who's targeting "well regulated militias"? And why is anyone who wants to discuss
reasonable restrictions on firearms a "left wing nut"? Your fantasies aside, this has utterly zero to do with an armed population keeping government in check. And regarding abortion, there are restrictions and should be. No one as far as I know is advocating unlimited abortion. In fact it appears that lowering the number of abortions is an objective of both the left and the right.
-- Posted by walt amses on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 8:43 am EST

report this comment



If well regulated militias are not a threat then why have they been targeted by this administration? They are targeted by every Democrat administration. It is a basic tenet put forth by every left wing nut who has the ability to read and understand Marx, that an armed population stands in the way of complete government control. To find the evidence of this we need go no further than the posts in this string. Now, if the preservation of human life is the focus of your agreement with the likes of Bloomberg, then I fully expect to see your posts supporting a full ban on abortion...which kills 1 million plus every year. That is 49 million since 1973.
-- Posted by James Hill on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 8:19 am EST

report this comment



ML - It's impossible to imagine our being armed causing the government to be intimidated by us in the least, unless it's 1776 or you're advocating unlimited (in any way) firearm ownership. That means absolutely any kind of weapon in whatever numbers we choose. Is that what you're really saying? Because this seems like what the NRA advocates when they lobby against every single restriction that comes up - including plastic guns that can't be detected by ex ray technology. The truth of the matter is that the "right" to bear arms was designed for a specific purpose that no longer exists because - over time - we've ignored the "well regulated militia" aspect of the constitution. What you're managing to do is use the "militia" part while ignoring the "well regulated" part. Isn't that just a little contradictory?
-- Posted by walt amses on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 7:44 am EST

report this comment



1. Cows

2. The Constitution

3. The Ten Commandments



COWS

is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls.

BUT, they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them each a cow.



THE CONSTITUTION

They keep talking about drafting and using a Constitution for Iraq...Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys. It has worked for over 200 years, and besides, we arent using it anymore...



THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this:

You can not post

Thou Shall not Steal

Thou Shall not commit Adultery

and Thou Shall not Lie in a

building full of lawyers, judges and politicians.....It creates a hostile work enviroment,
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, 1:45 am EST

report this comment



Really ML, do you think the people are going to ever rise up and fight the government? Do you really think the government even fears that? If the government wanted to take away the peoples guns, they would probably have a fight from some, but most wouldn't even get out of their armchairs.. seriously.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 11:58 pm EST

report this comment



Obammy , the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the White House swamp in a land called Washington DC,
Little Rahm and Axelrod loved that rascal puff,
And brought him communists, socialists and stealing votes and other radical stuff. oh

Obammy, the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the White House swamp in a land called Washington DC,
Obammy , the magic dragon lived by the sea
And frolicked in the White House swamp in a land called Washington DC.

Together they would travel on Air Force One wasting taxpayer dough
Michelle kept a lookout perched on Obammy's gigantic tail,
Noble Reid and princess Pelosi would bow and bend over wheneer they came,
Commies and liberals would lower their heads when Obama roared out his name. oh!
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 11:28 pm EST

report this comment



Yes Walt, regardless of things play out in you fantasy world, GOVERNMENTS have not always had the peoples interest in mind. I don't need to preach history to you but just about every tyrant in modern history sought to disarm the people. The military has grown far beyond the scope the founders imagined. The military is sworn to uphold the constitution, but then again, so is the presidents. It is the peoples responsibility to make sure the government represents the people, not government power and control. It is clearly stated that the right to bear arms is one of many safe guards implemented to protect liberty, and fight off tyranny. So yes Walt its there to help protect from all enemy's, foreign and domestic.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 10:33 pm EST

report this comment



The majority of what gun deaths? Please expound on what you said.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 10:00 pm EST

report this comment



ML and Douglas,

The majority of those gun deaths are suicides. No one saved. So you know.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 9:30 pm EST

report this comment



Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws.
On the contrary,
it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 8:02 pm EST

report this comment



No, that's not what I'm advocating - I'm just talking about some of the myths of self protection.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 7:38 pm EST

report this comment



Walk ok, I'll agree to leaving 50% numberless. I don't have a real issue with that. However, you ask how many needless killings are ok. Ask yourself, how many lives saved are OK? Where do we balance it out. 2:1 if we are at 2:1 right now, and we take those guns that are used to save lives from people who use them properly that would change the ratio to 1:0 , crooks win 100% of the time. Is that OK?

I don't care what you do to keep things froms crooks they will always get it. NYC one of the most heavily regulated gun areas in the country.. look at illegal possesion there. UK gun deaths and violence are on the rise. Yet, its probably the most regulated country for gun laws.

Neitherlands, ownership is almost 100% and yet has one of the lowest gun violence numbers. I can cite these two extremes and show you keeping guns out of criminals hands by not allowing honest people to own them does not work.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 7:35 pm EST

report this comment



Doug - I'm not the library of congress; I found it pretty easily as I did the 30 thousand plus deaths a year; if I'm asking for an objective discussion, it doesn't makes sense for me to make things up. Regarding guns purchased for self defense: what I've read - and again it's easily accessible - is that such guns are twice as likely to be used on a family member as an intruder. That seems pretty clear. Why do we need statistics on the loophole, by the way? How many needless shootings are OK?

ML - So you're suggesting that the "right" is to defend ourselves is against the government........right? Did you forget about the Army? Or the Marines? The National Guard? As usual you call names "disgusting" with "underdeveloped emotions and psyches" while demonstrating a burning need to seem like an intellectual yourself. So tell me, Brainy One, how in the world can you think the government - as insidious as you describe it to be - given their military resources, would be even slightly intimidated by yokels like us - even if we're armed? Or are you also suggesting that we should be able to acquire an unlimited quantity or type of weapon, presumably to fight the government?
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 7:14 pm EST

report this comment



Actually the NRA does publish when a gun is used properly to save a life or in defense of life, liberty, and property. Its just hard to get those stories when its not commonly broadcast. My point about weither or not a gun is used by the agressor aginst the defender was, how many times does this happen? Half tells nothing. Its a great sound bite, but thats about it.

I use the arguement of cars because it most often used against gun owners and for pro-gun restrictions. Felons, who became felons by actions involving cars can still by cars. Why? If the Constitution was written today, we would have many less rights then we do now.

So, find me the number of crimes commited by firearms purchased at gun shows, via gun show loop-hole. If you want to convince anybody then that number needs to be factually proven and well documented.

Walt still hasn't properly referenced his 1 million in 30 years.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 6:47 pm EST

report this comment



Melissa,

You clearly do not get it. Its not about hunting, its not about survival, and its not about the police and the military. It is about keeping checks and balances against our government. You will be a lot less likely to be a tyrant or dictator if the people you are trying to rule are armed. Its not about what melissa, mel, walt, olde man, or even I want, It is about the rule of law, and about preserving the principles that this nation was founded on. This nation, the one who went from unexplored land to a world superpower in only about 200 years. This nation, who has created more millionaires in the past 50 years than most European countries combined. This nation which oppressed people still long to be a part of today. The principles that this great nation was founded are not broken, it is the minds of the people that seems to be deteriorating. The complete trust and admiration for papa gov by the left in this country is disgusting and stems from underdeveloped emotions and psyches.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 6:40 pm EST

report this comment



Cars were not put in the constitution for a militia to be used if it was needed to either a. uprise against ones government or b. fight for our own safety against intruders to our nation.

The car argument really doesn't enter the equation. The problem with cars, is anyone can get a license, no matter how crappy, stupid or idiotic they are.. oh wait.. thats guns sales too..
hmmm

Seriously though, the times of the constitution and the wording of militia alone is reason why things have been amended, it's not the same now as it was then, we have police, we have a military to protect us, we don't HAVE to hunt to survive. So in consideration of that, if the constitution was created today, we may not have the right to bear arms.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 6:01 pm EST

report this comment



But - even if news agencies wouldn't cover self defense - the NRA would publicize such incidents and cite them whenever the could, fact is, they don't because of the research I mentioned: such guns are twice as likely to kill or injure a family member as an intruder. But the larger issue is why should the opportunity for a felon or someone else who shouldn't have a gun being able to purchase one be a state's rights issue?
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 5:41 pm EST

report this comment



But then, you have to know how many guns are bought in self defense. I don't know I don't think anybody knows, but we know from the number CDC gives you can subtract all pierceings, slashes, and suicides.

In fact, the news agencies are much less likly to report a gun owner successfully defending themselves than one being used in a crime.

Cars are involved in many more death then fiearms. Perhaps, we should be concentrating on restricting them. After all they are not protected by the Constitution.

If you look at all gun shows the huge majority of sales are from dealer who still must follow the law dictated by thier FFL. The so called "loop-hole" only applies to individuals. Also, this so called loop-hole is and can be managed by the States. Why must the Federal Gov't come in and trample all over States' Rights?

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 5:23 pm EST

report this comment



Regarding guns "saving lives", the fact of the matter is that a gun purchased for self defense is more than twice as likely to be used against a family member than against an intruder. The million dead in thirty years doesn't seem so outrageous when you consider that - on average - over 30 thousand Americans die each year via gun violence; that is homicide and suicide - 96 per day. And I'm not saying - nor have I advocated - a gun ban; but a dialogue. Why should there by any loophole, for instance? Why should anyone who wouldn't ordinarily be able to purchase a firearm be allowed to do so anywhere?
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 4:56 pm EST

report this comment



We will never know, I agree with your point. Good link.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 4:29 pm EST

report this comment



Jeff,

The number saved is a number we will never know. I would love to think many more. However, its not a number that I can find is tracked anywhere.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 4:14 pm EST

report this comment



The real question is not how many have been killed, but how many have been saved? How many of those "30 million" deaths where shot in self defense?

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 4:09 pm EST

report this comment



Sorry Walt, I mean the 1 million in 30 years.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 4:09 pm EST

report this comment



What is one person's "loop-hole" is another person's right.

Walt,
Again you are using the 30 million number. Where are your facts to back that number up. I have found that number on a lot of anti-gun sites but with no original documentation. Prove it, or acknowledge it as false or unproved number.

Acorrding to the CDC , slashing , and puncture deaths are also grouped with firearm deaths. I looked at one year in 2000's and the total number of gun deaths was less than 40K inspite of 2 other types of deaths grouped with it.

Here is a link to famous saying of our founder, religious figures, mass murders, and pacifist about firearms.

http://www.vtgunsmiths.com/arms/ffquote.html

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 3:13 pm EST

report this comment



That's true Rob. Far and few between would go to a gun show and try to buy guns. But the letter is on a sting that was conducted to see if a person that has a record, a felony, and can't have guns could get one. They could, the sellers that were approached laughed and said they probably wouldn't be able to get a gun legally themselves.

Is it something that happens a lot? I doubt it really, but it can and does happen. That is a concern, any way we can find that stops someone that shouldn't have a gun is in our favor.

This is something that is under scrutiny because someone could be brass enough to set up a table with unregistered, stolen guns to sell to anyone that approaches that table. Again, would that happen, unlikely, a lot of law abiding citizens are at these gun shows and would probably say something.

A loop hole is actually what it implies, a loop hole, used occasionally by a very few people, but it is available, shouldn't it be handled so that it isn't available?

I don't think anyone is trying to stop gun shows, just better checks of the tables to make sure things are legitimate. I don't see why anyone would have an issue with making the sales safe and legitimate at all the tables.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 12:35 pm EST

report this comment



"Making sure criminals don't get guns at gun shows is not infringing on anyones rights."

Is there any evidence that supports the idea that criminals are buying guns at shows? Wouldn't it be easier and more discreet froma criminal to buy a gun from another criminal? That you can't and will not stop.
-- Posted by Rob Shatney on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 11:59 am EST

report this comment



"Thus, a State can create and regulate a militia if it wishes, but these regulations cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The text does not give the right to bear arms to a militia, or the agents of the state alone. The right is reserved for the people, and it shall not be infringed."

Mr. West,

So, DO you think individuals should be allowed to have nuclear or chemical weapons? If not, then you too believe that the federal government has the right to regulate arms sales and possession. If you do think individuals should be allowed to buy and keep WMD's, then I think you're nuts, man.

While I certainly think that the public's right to bear arms is paramount, I also think there have to be reasonable limits. Where those lines get drawn is what discussions like this one are for.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 9:49 am EST

report this comment



Wally and other applicable liberals,

So why is it you only like to cite or use the constitution when it comes to free healthcare, gay marriage and abortions til the hearts content?

The 2nd ammendment at least spells it out in black and white, and it is written in stone in some places....

..... unlike the liberal translations of the constitution where they add what they think is social or economic justice and a contorted view of ultimately trying to get a mix of communism-socialism-marxism and redistribution of wealth.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 8:11 am EST

report this comment



So, Mr. West, do the million dead in thirty years not matter or are you just suggesting they be ignored. It's a real number. I didn't make it up. But beyond that, the rationale that a "well regulated militia" is the basis for firearm ownership and yet completely unnecessary is convoluted reasoning. I realize how the court interpreted the phrase but it still doesn't make sense to me. I have no illusions that guns are going to be banned; I'm not even advocating such a thing. But your suggestion that I'm naive while invoking "Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia" resorts to the same NRA paranoia I've been talking about. If you think that Americans, based on this 200 year old phrase, are entitled to an unlimited access to any type, size and number of firearms, then we're obviously not going to have much of a dialogue on gun violence. We can't have a national discussion about the topic without being bullied into submission by the NRA.
-- Posted by walt amses on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 6:59 am EST

report this comment



All the arguments; the bloviating here about hunting, walt amses statistic of one million dead in thirty years, and Shapiro's schizophrenic straw man waving around a tactical nuke, are null and void. Inner city, bucolic countryside, or wherever, the simple fact is that man anywhere and everywhere has the natural right to keep and bear arms. This is because man has the right to life, liberty, and property as long as he is not infringing on others right to life, liberty, and property. The problem around the world is that government is infringing on this natural right.

In the USA, this natural right is clearly written into the constitution. Let's look at the text: "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." It contains a justification clause and an operative clause. The justification clause does not ovveride the meaning of the operative clause, it simply provides a reason justifying the operative clause. In this case, the operative clause makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, and it cannot be infringed. Thus, a State can create and regulate a militia if it wishes, but these regulations cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The text does not give the right to bear arms to a militia, or the agents of the state alone. The right is reserved for the people, and it shall not be infringed.

The statist notion running through this comment dialog is that somehow the people have no rights except what the benevolent rulers give them. This notion that we should have an unlimited government and trust in benevolent rulers to grant us rights is sickening to those who value and cherish freedom. It is perverse to a free society and is more akin to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the individual is nothing without the provider state.

walt amses, your beliefs that the government would not like a disarmed society is laughable in its naivete. It is in the nature of government and its officials to seek and seize more and more power, and to restrict the freedoms of its citizenry in order to tighten control. Right now, it may not be politically expedient to increase gun control measures, but this does not mean it is not a priority of those in power.

Also naive and laughable is that the government can regulate justly, effectively, and in the public interest. Government regulations almost always consolidate power for itself or the lobbying groups that currently have influence. Gun control is no different. Gun regulations are an attempt to slowly usurp 2nd amendment rights and to establish legal precedents and footholds that will be useful later on for the same purpose without upsetting the voting population.

The mountain of evidence disproving what Leo Strauss might call the "noble lies"; that the US government is a benevolent force for good, that when it errs it can easily be reformed, that democracy is a great virtue, and that the voting population is wise, is only lightly papered over by the public schools, academia and mainstream media. The spread of free information on the internet is slowly alerting people that things are not as they seem.
-- Posted by Mr. West on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 1:48 am EST

report this comment



A final point that I will contribute to this "discussion" is that I believe it's vital to recognize the distinction that needs to be made between the use of guns in an urban setting and in a rural setting. I would venture a guess, and it is a guess, that the vast majority of urban gun owners seldom if ever use or even own guns with the intention of hunting game with them. Whereas I believe that the vast majority of gun owners in Vermont own guns with the primary intention of using them for the lawful purpose of some form of hunting. Yet the negative issues created by the use of guns in an urban setting draws the greatest attention and creates the greatest influence on the controls placed on the ownership of guns everywhere. Yeah, it's fight to be sure but I honestly believe that if we're going to hold on to our guns and the right to use them how we in Vermont use them, we have to make decisions based on what happens here, not in Chicago or New York. We need representation that recognizes that and gun owners to keep our traditions alive and separate. We the gun owners need to be responsible. Use common sense, if that even exists anymore, and teach rather than preach. I could go on but I believe I've made my point. Shot alot, shoot often. Be safe out there and know your target, ALWAYS.
-- Posted by Paul None on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 6:29 pm EST

report this comment



BS - Although I'm sure you have many fine qualities, obviously reading comprehension isn't among them. Your post only serves to illustrate my point rather than yours: Righties need a straw man in order to justify whatever their talking point of the day might be. Sorry, but I've never advocated anything "totalitarian", only a conversation which you are obviously unwilling or incapable of having.
-- Posted by walt amses on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 5:25 pm EST

report this comment



Obviously, Walt's only mission here is to p--s everyone off with his ignorance of the 2nd amendment. He's doing a good job at that. How can any one person be so stupid and rabidly totalitarian?
-- Posted by BS Avenger on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 5:02 pm EST

report this comment



1/7/2009--Introduced.

Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) raise the age of handgun eligibility to 21 (currently, 18); and (2) prohibit persons under age 21 from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, with exceptions. Increases penalties for: (1) a second or subsequent violation by a juvenile of Brady Act provisions or for a first violation committed after an adjudication of delinquency or after a state or federal conviction for an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a serious violent felony; and (2) transferring a handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device to a person who is under age 21, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that such person intended to use it in the commission of a crime of violence. Prohibits any licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer from transferring a firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer) unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device. Authorizes the Attorney General to suspend or revoke any firearms license, or to subject the licensee to a civil penalty of up to $10,000, if the licensee has knowingly violated this prohibition.

Prohibits keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises knowing or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child: (1) is capable of gaining access to it; and (2) will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Requires the parent or legal guardian of a child to ensure that a child attending a gun show is accompanied by an adult.

Authorizes the Attorney General to provide grants to enable local law enforcement agencies to develop and sponsor gun safety classes for parents and children.

Expresses the sense of Congress that each school district should provide or participate in a firearms safety program for students.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 4:26 pm EST

report this comment



HR 45
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes....

Oh yea what other purposes. Libs scared a militia might even the score?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
..
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 4:24 pm EST

report this comment



As for your answer to your ranting fears.. I'll give you one as soon as you provide me with the answer to my question. Where and when did Obama say he was going to take anyones guns away?

Still waiting..
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 4:07 pm EST

report this comment



Thanks mel for your little rant, with out you, ayk and ml we would all be so uninformed.

Obama isn't hurting you as badly as you would like to dream.

The pandemic I completely agree on. it's bs. Just another scare tactic by the medical association, the presidents part, I'm assuming he would rather be safe then sorry, he's not a scientist, he's a politician.

Have a cup of tea take a big breath, the world will not dissolve in your view any time soon.
Cheers!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 4:04 pm EST

report this comment



Douglas - My post crossed yours in the electronic void; it's not a reference to what you've said.
-- Posted by walt amses on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 3:29 pm EST

report this comment



Nicely stated Paul - What's startling about this entire topic is the "libs" all seem to be stating pretty clearly that gun bans or taking guns away are not on their agenda; only opening up a dialogue regarding gun violence. The response has been either paranoid NRA hysteria or completely changing the subject - Acorn or homosexuality. This is the tactic-of-choice by the far right in order to justify their own disjointed thinking: demonize something or someone with a fabrication, an exaggeration or an outright lie. Create irrational fear of the "other" and subsequently a need to protect something: Gun ownership; marriage; capitalism; or the children. it's nothing more than an attack on an objective debate they are incapable of winning on merit.
-- Posted by walt amses on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 3:26 pm EST

report this comment



One million Americans have died needlessly in the past 30 years - not from hydrogen peroxide bombs - but from guns. The NRA hasn't mentioned hunting in years. Guns are for shooting people. If a million people died from paste asphxiation, the government would hopefully regulate stamp collecting.

-- Posted by walt amses on Mon, Oct 19, 2009

Walt, do you proof of these numbers other than the anti-gun mantra? I can't find it. Infact I spot check the CDC and gun deaths didn't even show up in the top 10 in many years in 90's. Granted I did not look at deaths for every year in last 30 years.

My 2nd Amendment is not out dated nor is it without restrictions. Firearms are some of the most regulated items in the USA. They are rgulated by the Constitution (very liberally) , by the Federal Gov't (massive amount of regulations), States, and in some cases the Local Gov't.

I am for common sense laws. For instance, why can somebody who has a dwi, dui, or other, even be allowed to own a car? Cars are used to kill and maim more people then guns are. Why are any cargenogeons (sp) every allowed to be used in anything? We know cancer is the number 1 or 2 killer of all people.

The Constitution says I can own a firearm(s) without gov't interference. I live in a state that also allows me to own firearms without interference. Towns can't regulate my ownership.

I am not a minion of anything or anybody. I will defend anybodys Rights as hard as I defend my own if they are in accordance with the Constitution, not some made up law.

The Supreme Courst has found that the 2nd Amendment is a Contitutional Right in D.C. It will be heard again if it is a Individual Right of All Americans (via Chicago case), unless the court does a very narrow ruling.

I am proud to be a firearm owner, in a household of firearm owners.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 3:24 pm EST

report this comment



Hi jim. I don't know what an "internet troll" is. Never heard the term. I don't spend much time using computers. Most of the time I have better things to do. As to what clubs I'm a member of, I don't think it really matters. But I will say, I belong to more than one. As to knowing how many laws there are that pertain to gun ownership and what they are.......I don't know anyone, seventh generation Vermonter or not, who could have told you that. Also, I'm not the family historian, my sister is. She's done an amazing job tracing and documenting the family history, has done so for many years and continues to this day. And with photographic evidence I can prove that most were gun owners and hunters. This whole issue isn't something I care to break a sweat over. I'll continue to own my guns, the ones I buy and the ones I inherit. I'll continue to hunt and be ethical and safe about it. I'll continue to seek intelligent, capable people to hunt with. I know what a deer looks like, unlike some people, and I hope to shoot one in about a month. I will be hunting with my 24 year old daughter who's a registered firearms instructor. She'll be using my grandfathers rifle. The very one I shot a bear and two deer with. There are such things as, or at least there used to be, common sense or tradition that didn't need research or law to back them up. Things simply were as they were because that's how it was always done. I'll stick to that mentality even though so few of us are left. Yeah, it's outdated, but it's provides for a much better quality and way of life.
-- Posted by Paul None on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 2:22 pm EST

report this comment



"Bonehead"......I just have to shake my head over that one. Lighten up Mel. Don't take yourself so seriously. I certainly don't. So to the subject at hand. In fact, yes, the context and the circumstances that existed when the second amendment of the constitution was written no longer exist so it is in fact outdated. Did the U.S. have an organized army or any branch of the military at the time? NO Was it necessary for the government to draw upon its citizenry to act at the behest of and on behalf of the government? YES Did the citizenry have to act in the form of a militia? YES. Did they have to keep and bear their own firearms in order to do so? YES What part of this still exists today? We have well armed military forces who are so well armed by the government and no longer need to purchase and possess their own arms for the purpose of defending our country. There certainly are a number of radical factions that call themselves militias but do not act on behalf of or at the call of the government.
-- Posted by Paul None on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 2:00 pm EST

report this comment



"Hey Jim, why the need for insults? Not capable of intelligent conversation? I'm a seventh generation Vermonter. Where are you from?"

Paul,
First, they are not insults, but observations after years of admin'ing boards and doing user profiling work for ISP's. You can pick out "Trolls"(not the ones out of books or under bridges) as if they had troll for their user name., read the link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll if you do not know what a "internet troll" is.

Anyone that starts their comment as "used to" or "I am...but" (to name a few)are give aways.
Also, when you say;"I'm a seventh generation Vermonter." That is the biggest flag of them all. Unfortunately, I am only a 3rd gen and grew up in East Barre. Maybe you should use your full name. This is easily confirmed by UVM's Vermont Family historic records. Most all Vermont families that can be traced 5 or more gen's love to brag about this proof.

Also, if you ARE a 7th gen VTr you would have been familiar with the gun laws in the state and that there is only 13 laws in the state dealing with firearms, outside of hunting regulations.


So again, "What clubs are you a member of?"
-- Posted by jim busch on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 1:36 pm EST

report this comment



Melissa, read the paper, listen to the news, Obama is selling us up the river like ALL THE OTHERS! Neither party is worth a damn. We owe so many countries money we cannot pay back, did you know that you, yes YOU are the credit for our lovely country??? Your social security number and everyone elses is given at birth, you and I are already paying off debt from FDR's years! Our beloved country BORROWS money from other countries and uses its people as the credit..Pull your perverbial head out of your arse and wake up. Tell me Obama is not a player, tell me I'm waiting...Convince me darling, you cant and it is all one big ******** game. You want the truth, doubt it. When the government and elite take your guns, tax you to death, give you innauculations, scare you with false news crap about swine flu epidemics, tell what can be taught in your schools, Children singing little Obama songs, help bail out the fatcat rich bankers and you loose YOUR home to a mortgage, enlighten me Melissa, come on I am really ready for your daydream flippin philosophy, your great pipedream of America and how it is all gonna be alright...
-- Posted by Mel on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 1:30 pm EST

report this comment



Dear Paul, The CONSTITUTION is NEVER outdated you bonehead...
-- Posted by Mel on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 1:17 pm EST

report this comment



I am all done reading ML aka Jeff Perkin's posts until she can get a small grasp on the English language.

And to think this twit throws out the "education" card on a regular basis.

Spelling, Grammar and diction would be a good starting point. Twit !
-- Posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 11:18 am EST

report this comment



The Tea Party Express is back - and rolling across America October 25th - November 11th. It's called the "Tea Party Express: Countdown to Judgment Day" and it marks the 1-year mark before the 2010 congressional elections
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 10:16 am EST

report this comment



Hey Jim, why the need for insults? Not capable of intelligent conversation? I'm a seventh generation Vermonter. Where are you from?
-- Posted by Paul None on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 10:14 am EST

report this comment



Reading these posts is great! It is getting deep in here with the "Trolls" and "used to's".
Especially "Paul none". Either from NJ or NY, a "anti" troll or just ignorant to the fact. What clubs are you a member of?


LOL
-- Posted by jim busch on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 9:40 am EST

report this comment



A few years ago I took every gun I owned to a State Police Barracks and asked to register my guns, primarily for my protection against theft and misuse. I was told that "we can't do that" as there is nothing mandating that this be done. Currently, the only way to voluntarily register guns that I'm aware of in the State of Vermont is with your insurance company.
-- Posted by Paul None on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 8:32 am EST

report this comment



Criminals or any person intenet on causing bodily harm or death will find a way to get a gun or any weapon they want no matter what.

Vermont does not have strict gun laws compared to other states. How many shootings in the streets? Chicago has had 300 youth killed this year and Chicago has gun BANS.
How many school gun incidents? You are more apt to see pot smoking pill popping kids in schools reported to police.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 8:29 am EST

report this comment



I've purchased guns from dealers, private sale, and one from at a gun show. I have no problem having to wait for a background check or whatever process might be in place and necessary. I used to belong to the N.R.A. and dropped my membership after the proposal was made to implement a waiting period between application for a gun and delivery of it. The N.R.A. strongly opposed this. I believed then and I believe how that the decision to purchase a gun should be a thoughtful and deliberate process and absent emotional motivation. A waiting period would hopefully slow down or eliminate emotional or impulse purchases. It takes a while to come to the decision to purchase a gun. With proper planning and due consideration, what's a few more days?
-- Posted by Paul None on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 8:29 am EST

report this comment



CJ - As I said, there's no chance that congress will tangle with the NRA - even Clinton and Obama last fall on the campaign trail, after several deaths at a college shooting, felt the need to say they support gun rights. All I'm thinking we need to have is an open dialogue about how to address the NRA's position of completely unlimited gun ownership. Many of the 1 million gun deaths in the country over the last 30 years were crimes of opportunity or impulse. Although I understand the analogy of anything being used as a weapon, it's hard to shoot yourself in the head with a baseball bat.
-- Posted by walt amses on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 7:19 am EST

report this comment



Walt, it isn't very often that I disagree with you, but speaking as a gun toting homo I have to say while your intents are great here but your practicality is off..
There simply isn't any way to limit how many guns a person owns. I've owned more than my "share" in the past, some I never used for anything than to look and and admire the craftmanship, but I had the right to buy em and sell em.
I acknowledge that gun deaths are higher in the US than other so called first world countries..but, so's the civil rights and freedom, for the moment..
I wasn't aware, until studied gun death rates around the world, just how free we really are...even countries like Britain ,France and the recently democratic Japan are extremely strict in civil liberties..and some civil rights as well it seems..
I can concede that automatic weapons have no place in American culture...no amount of posting here will convince me that the average American needs a machine designed to kill humans en masse..
However, on the flip side, no poster will convince me that limiting sales to a law abiding public will absolutely solve a gun crime problem.
Pandoras box has been opened, and no one can put the lid back. What we can do is limit accidental gun deaths through education of gun safety, and work on some societal changes that recognizes troubled youth and the mentally unstable..
-- Posted by CJ maloney on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 6:54 am EST

report this comment



First the president illegally taps our phones, then he gets a list from libraries of everything we read, then totes away citizens to torture and never give a trial to, AND now New York without direction from Washington is trying to up hold a law that is already on the books! What will he do next?
wait...what's that you say?..different guy? Oh.
-- Posted by Jim Richards on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 6:32 am EST

report this comment



"The only time the libs like to point to the constitution is for their so-called alleged civil rights issues, or teaching queers in schools, or abortion rights. They have no problem killing millions of babies but want to protect terrorists rights. And while htey are killing mostly poor, minority black kids, they lib idiots dont seem to care that they are killing of their own future voters. Irony."

ARK, what planet are you on? How many murders are there in this country every year? How many American citizens die at home every year from gun violence? How many school kids have died to randomly getting shot by someone with a gun? True, a good percentage of these deaths are minorities, so that does not count in your eyes, but think about it for a minute if you can. When us idiot libs as you say look at the constitution for civil rights issues we also see that we have rights not to be blasted away by some nut protesting his/her right to own a weapon. You yell at us for abortions; you just want to kill them when they grow up.
-- Posted by Watercloset on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 12:17 am EST

report this comment



Actually the WHOLE idea is null and void. 95% of all Gun Show organizers require people selling guns at tables in the show to be Federally Licensed, thus REQUIRED by federal law to perform a background check on ALL sales. So the point is mute. The only ones that are not are private sales and I don't know any person that is going to rent a table, if they could, for $300 for the table to sell a few guns with checks. Remember if they sell more than 5 in one month, they are required to licensed by federal law.

Bloomberg is just beating his chest to stir the pot. BATFE has released reports, as recently as April 2009, that have stated that there is no to little connection to Gun Shows. only 3% of firearms used in crimes have been traced to a direct sale at a gun show. Theft is 68% and "Straw Purchasing" makes up the difference(both which circumvent background checks) of guns used in crimes.
-- Posted by jim busch on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 10:29 pm EST

report this comment



The only time the libs like to point to the constitution is for their so-called alleged civil rights issues, or teaching queers in schools, or abortion rights. They have no problem killing millions of babies but want to protect terrorists rights. And while htey are killing mostly poor, minority black kids, they lib idiots dont seem to care that they are killing of their own future voters. Irony.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 10:22 pm EST

report this comment



"If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory"

Michael Kinsley Slate Magazine

-
-- Posted by Jeff Andrews on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 9:42 pm EST

report this comment



Yes, of course, gun control morphs into Acorn for the reality impaired.
-- Posted by walt amses on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 8:46 pm EST

report this comment



...." I'm absolutely sure he pocketed some cash like many small business owners do. He won't be able to anymore. If he does and is ever investigated. He will pay fines....."

Well according to ACORN tax consultants, its best to keep moneyin a tin canint eh back yard, and do not report all income to IRS
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 8:40 pm EST

report this comment



This might not be the right forum to discuss constitutional law, but it is worth noting that the second amendment has never been incorporated to apply to the states. Essentially, it means that the federal government is bound by the second amendment, but the states are not. In theory, states could regulate guns all they want without the second amendment being an issue. However, this is not entirely clear.
It would be nice if the outspoken gun rights folk at least knew this before they yammer on with their "cold dead hands" cliches. Maybe they shouldn't be so worried about Obama taking their guns as they should about the legislators of their own states?
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 8:31 pm EST

report this comment



Many people below are off topic.

The writer of the letter is wrong. He's mad because he will have to do more work. He will have to take a class and get a license to sell. He will have to have records and keep records on buyers. He will have to show proof of sales and will be liable if a criminal purchases a gun from his shop. And, yes, he will have to pay tax on every sale. I'm absolutely sure he pocketed some cash like many small business owners do. He won't be able to anymore. If he does and is ever investigated. He will pay fines.

Who is the real criminal here? It's the guy that wants to sell guns to anyone for any reason just to make money. The writer of this letter just wants no responsibility when it comes to making a deal. He doesn't care if he sells a gun to a KNOWN killer.

It WILL NOT stop HONEST people from buying guns. Why is he lieing to you all? Honest people who are allowed to bare arms WILL be able to purchase guns.

It will restrict criminals from purchasing guns easily at gun shows. That's it. This isn't a crime against our civil rights. This isn't about total gun control. This is about eligibility. Some people are LEGALLY not allowed to bare arms.

This is about making sure citizens, who have lost their right to bare arms, will not be able to easily purchase arms at gun shows. Where sales are happening and people are NOT being checked to see if they are allowed to purchase the gun.


Think about it... It's no different at a f'n Drug Store. Without a prescription. You are not supposed to get the medications. What would people think about a Medication Show? Where anyone can purchase any drugs. Why don't we allow it? Because we know there are people who will abuse the drugs.

So why do we allow gun sales to criminals... legally...

Doesn't make sense.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 7:53 pm EST

report this comment



"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."

ML,

I agree with you about our right to have and keep rifles and shotguns. Of course we should be able to have them. But it doesn't mean there shouldn't be some regulation of arms... You don't think schizophrenics should be able to have tactical nukes, do you? So (unless you're completely insane) you agree that there should be some regulation of what arms can go to whom. So now we're just talking about where to draw the line.

No one wants to take your guns away. That's paranoid, right-wing radio nonsense. The discussion here is who should be allowed to buy weapons and how. Since we already agree there should be a line, can't we work together to make sure it gets painted in smart spot?

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 6:57 pm EST

report this comment



CJ - Hopefully you didn't take my post as advocating a totalitarian state, because it is fairly typical of NRA supporters - to essentially cheerlead paranoia if anyone dares to seek even a shred of sense around gun ownership. But honestly, do you see a solution that falls somewhere between Japan's near gun prohibition and gun ownership that is completely unlimited regarding the size, type and number of firearms a person can legally own?
-- Posted by walt amses on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 6:42 pm EST

report this comment



Well, we could have a gun murder rate like Japan, but then again we would have to pay $125 bucks for a hunting "license" and then have police count your rounds after every hunt to make sure you had the proper amount of ammo left..and of course you can't have it anywhere but a locker approved by the "state".
The Japanese are very agreeable with that, they love authority...they loved it so much they let authority figures drag em into WW2, and exterminate Chinese..Americans too...so you can see what happens when the "government" has the guns..
-- Posted by CJ maloney on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 6:21 pm EST

report this comment



I should have clarified earlier, the NRA doesn't mention hunting when they're inoculating their minions with the paranoid notion (ML, derek) that someone is going to take their guns away. Not only is it untrue, but when you repeatedly spew the imbecilic mantra "from my cold, dead hands", it implies not only that someone must do away with the gun owner first, but that someone WANTS TO! Like the "jack booted thugs" of fantasy. With congress as gelded as they are by the NRA, depicting gun owners as an oppressed minority is absurd. No one wants to take away anyone's guns - but it would be nice to be able to enjoin a national conversation about some reasonable control of the type and quantity of weapons a person can acquire. What about "a well regulated militia"? The NRA never mentions "regulated"; they also never mention "militia" for that matter. Should firearm ownership be completely unlimited? Should gun shows be exempt from any regulations? And ML, your erroneous perceptions of the "inner city" sound like the cliche' express is going down the mountain without brakes. You don't have
to include twisted libertarian logic in every single post.
-- Posted by walt amses on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 4:33 pm EST

report this comment



You didn't answer the question Mel. Where did you get that from? When has Obama said he will ever take anyones gun away?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 4:01 pm EST

report this comment



I love when people throw around the second amendment like it gives them the right to own guns. READ WHAT IT SAYS! What it meant then is not what it means now. It's outdated and no longer applicable. What it means is, for the purpose of protecting our country, our people need to be a part of a militia and the government doesn't provide guns, you have to provide your own. We have the military to do what militias used to be necessary for. Oh, and before you ask, I'm a gun owner and hunter. I have numerous shotguns, rifles and pistols and I use them.........often and I love it!
-- Posted by Paul None on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 3:55 pm EST

report this comment



Same old story. Blame the guns not the gun owners. Its the man behind the weapon last time I checked. Obama will eventually take all our freedoms away, but you liberal tree huggers supprt that. You wonder why most make fun of you pathetic hippies. Get a life!!! Impeach Obama the most non american we know.
-- Posted by derek on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 3:27 pm EST

report this comment



Oh Melissa go vent somewhere else today, like out of Vermont deary... The voices are in your head not mine.
-- Posted by Mel on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 2:50 pm EST

report this comment



Where do you get that from Mel? The voices in your head?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 2:31 pm EST

report this comment



Read your 2nd Amendment, remember the Constitution anybody? Before long Obama will make sure you dont have one...
-- Posted by Mel on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 1:54 pm EST

report this comment



Making sure criminals don't buy guns at gun shows is pretty much already a done deal. In fact, I'm thinking that hard core, urban criminals would never set foot into a gun show or any other legal gun sale shop.
We need to be figuring out ways to stop murders by illegal gun owners, not keep checking law abiding gun owners to make sure they are not criminals.
Personally, I'd start with a military weapons ban.
Can't really hunt with an AK-47 or such, unless you really like hamburger, so who needs these?
-- Posted by Lulu's Mom on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 1:47 pm EST

report this comment



Not in Vermont obviously, but inner cities, mostly liberal, schools are significantly responsible. It is a breeding ground for entitlement, the police are worthless often antagonizing minority youth. Nobody care about the hood out side of the hood. Thats the problem. And the one institution who sole responsibility is educating and preparing the youth for a productive, safe, and possible happy life is not doing that. They have given up. Too little education, too little discipline, too much social re-engineering.

You gave then to stone, you gave them the chisel, but you did say how to hold them. Did you ever think that maybe bad kids do bad stuff just so they can get caught, just so they can get touched? Not every home comes equipped with a fix it man, and its a smelly mess when the sh*t hits the fan. The kids stand in circles with their d*cks in their hand, yelling F*** the world, because you cant make them understand. They don't see that its not where your from its where your at, it where your going. The Kids play red-rover and look for weakness to run through.

But there's nothing like beating a dead horse riding it through a ghost town.

That should keep you going for a bit.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 1:13 pm EST

report this comment



Holy cow! Mention trying to keep guns away from criminals and insane people and out come the tired, old platitudes about taking guns away from America's cowboys and can-poppers.

"Guns don't kill blah, blah, blah. Cars kill more people, blah, blah, blah. Only criminals ... blah, blah, blah. Pried from my cold, dead, blah, blah, blabiddty, blah, blah!

Sorry, boys, nobody wants your guns. You can relax now and put your tired, old NRA-inspired nonsense away for another day.
-- Posted by Jest Askin on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 12:49 pm EST

report this comment



Hold on a minute there Jeff . . . I'm a school teacher AND a gun owner (there's still a few of us left out there ya'know.)

This is sort of tangential to the conversation but are you saying our public school system is SOLELY responsible for kids becoming gang members?!?!
-- Posted by Dan Williams on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 12:42 pm EST

report this comment



Making sure criminals don't get guns at gun shows is not infringing on anyones rights.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 12:21 pm EST

report this comment



walt, what does hunting have to do with anything?

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.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Not that modern liberals give a rats a ss about the law or the US Constitution. It doesn't say, "for hunting" or "to be used in ones livelihood" It says Militia's (not the military alone) are necessary in a FREE STATE, and the people of this nation shall have a right to bear Arms. This right "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ON".

Guns don't kill people any more than cars, cigarettes, swimming pools, and construction sites "kill people". Stupid and irresponsible people kill people. By taking guns away you are not fixing the problem, a liberal norm. We need to find out why so many people are willing to kill in the first place. Why do our government schools leave people so hopeless they pick up a gun and decide the "gangster" life is the one that makes the most sense.... You dont want to make cars, snow mobiles, all terrain vehicles, ski's, skydiving, drinking, crossing the road, and even running marathons illegal do you? Didn't think so.

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands..

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 12:08 pm EST

report this comment



Hey Walt,

It's not true that the NRA hasn't mentioned hunting in years. I'm a member and I get their monthly publication, "AMERICAN HUNTER."
-- Posted by Dan Williams on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 10:20 am EST

report this comment



Guns are mearly a tool. They don't kill people, people kill people.

Mine gets used a lot. For hunting, for protecting my livestock from varmints and also for slaughtering some livestock. Again a tool, nothing more.

Then there is the old proverb: An armed society is a polite society.
-- Posted by Hunter- Farmer on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 9:14 am EST

report this comment



Don't forget, VT is the safest state in the country with the least gun control laws, the states with the strictest laws are the ones with the highest crime rates, restrict the honest man from having guns then only the criminals will have them. 2nd amendment is in place for a reason so don't forget that either. Cars kill more people a year than do guns, so do you ban them, cancer kills millions every year so do you ban everything that causes cancer, one more reminder, cars and cigarettes are not protected by our constitution, GUNS ARE!
-- Posted by David None on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 8:37 am EST

report this comment



One million Americans have died needlessly in the past 30 years - not from hydrogen peroxide bombs - but from guns. The NRA hasn't mentioned hunting in years. Guns are for shooting people. If a million people died from paste asphxiation, the government would hopefully regulate stamp collecting.
-- Posted by walt amses on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 6:16 am EST

report this comment



I used to be an NRA member way back when, and I generally believed the mantra they stood for. However, the right to KEEP and BEAR arms, in my opinion, has nothing to do with making as sure as you can that some nut can't lay hands on them. I realize it's a big order, but the one thing the NRA is also for is gun safety, and what is this but gun safety?
To some folks, gun shows are a big deal. I've been to a few and some of the attendees are kinda creepy..on BOTH sides of the table..One thing I'm sure of though, most of the sellers would forgo a sale if they thought or knew they were selling to a nut. In this day and age of electronics and computers, at least TRYING to look someone up is better than just handing out weapons to anyone with a drivers license..
-- Posted by CJ maloney on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 6:02 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout