I haven't seen any information about China promoting a U.S. gun control ban other than in fake right-wing "news" sites. China in the 21st Century is deeply entangled in the international economy and is increasingly capitalist; invasion is unlikely from that quarter.

This week's talking points aside, a disorganized citizen's militia would be no defense against foreign invasion. These ill-equipped "defenders" would theoretically last as long as their bullets and bystanders could be killed or injured in such a highly confrontational situation.

I believe you are misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment in suggesting the Founding Fathers intended for a multi-tiered military structure but at least you read the entire statement (more than many others have done). As I have explained before, British leadership prior to the Revolutionary War restricted colonials' gun ownership to prevent an armed uprising. They also billeted soldiers in colonials' homes not just to save money but to ensure that there was a military presence in all urban areas. The Revolutionary forces therefore were largely guerrilla and inconsistently armed. For that reason the Founders realized that 1) the U.S. needed a "well regulated" standing militia. The 3rd Amendment deals with the billeting of foreign soldiers.

Thus the question isn't "Do we want to change the Second Amendment (either altering its words or limiting its meaning)," but to interpret its true intent.

Bren,

I'm not sure whether the Chinese state media counts as "a fake right-wing news site," but I'm guessing that you could possibly interpret it as such (look up the article on the English version of Xinhua, December 15, 2012).

Then again, some have interpreted the second amendment (text reading as follows: "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") to permit a ban on handguns. Others, apparently like yourself, have decided that the first half of the text - containing zero action words and having as its only verb the word "being" - are the words that are most effective, something very contrary to normal English speech and writing patterns.

The point that I've made to many lately is that, rather than "interpret" the text, if you want it to say something, you should try to amend the wording. At least that way everyone is being honest about what is really going on.

"This week's talking points aside, a disorganized citizen's militia would be no defense against foreign invasion". Ha! Tell that to the Viet Cong.

Rik, as you didn't provide a link to the article you cite I searched xinhua English. Here's a link to the search results page: http://search.news.cn/language/search.jspa?id=en&t1=0&t=1&ss=&btn=0&ct=u+s++gun+ban&n1=gun+ban&np=content

Unless I am missing something there's nothing on the date you specify that indicates that the Chinese government is encouraging a gun ban in the U.S.

The 2nd Amendment must be analyzed/interpreted as written, in its entirety. While it does not specifically call for a gun "ban," it does state the benefit of a "well regulated militia" and does not specifically call for the arming of every citizen. The 2nd Amendment does not require modification unless a 2/3 majority of states agree that the U.S. no longer needs a military branch (an unlikely an imprudent scenario). This is why I suggest that the 2nd Amendment does not imbue the tacit Constitutional right to bear arms and that legislation should be created regulating gun ownership.

Avenging Angel, the Viet Cong/NLF was a highly organized political/military organization with alliances (at times) with the USSR and China. Not the best riposte.

Bren - my link is lost in "pending approval" status. Rather than repost the link, I will simply quote the article:

INNOCENT BLOOD DEMANDS NO DELAY FOR U.S. GUN CONTROL

"Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control..."

"...Every time a tragedy occurs, there are renewed appeals for gun regulation. However, the calls disappointingly always fail..."

"...Action speaks louder than words. If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost..."

That said, I think you may have betrayed some of the reasonable arguments you began to make when you equate the alteration of the second amendment with the US abandoning a military branch. Frankly, the two have no correlation. The second amendment is an individual right (clarified in D.C. v. Heller 554 US 570 (2008)), not a clause of the constitution that establishes a branch of the military. Your interpretation of the individual right appears to be no more than an interpretation of the second amendment as a statement of policy by the founders that a well-regulated militia is important. Which policy statement would become an individual right, I guess.

That's just weird.

Also, Bren, take a look at your search results. The article is on there - December 15, 2012:

"Innocent Blood Demands No Delay For U.S. Gun Control."

Perhaps you failed to realize that foreign dating systems put the year, month, then day (2012 - 12 - 15), unlike our own system.

@ann...I read Brian's blog and he's not really calling for a ban on guns. You need to look more closely at the context.

To hell with the second amendment.

AWD....You're calling Brian and others anti-American? You are an extreme nationalist, which is more anti-American than anything that Brian has written. You think that the constitution and its protections, duties and responsibilities only pertain to you and your skewed perspective.

A country in which the citizens can not critique policy is called a police state. Unfortunately many of you seem to confuse criticism with anti-Americanism. Ann, all laws restrict what you call freedoms. You do not have the freedom to murder people you don't like for instance, nor to drive your car any speed you may desire the "freedom" to. Existing gun laws shape your freedom. The point is not total freedom...freedom without form. The point is limited freedom that maximizes the quality of life for all.

Down with progress! Wat a dangerous idea...that we might actually progress, learn from mistakes, improve laws, update those that no longer serve. Hope you don't need surgery some day AWD... You might run into a surgeon who benefitted by the progress of medical science. You need a witch doctor right?

My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.

@ann...Yamamoto was firmly against a war with the US and clearly stated that Japan going to war with the US was waking a sleeping giant and that Japan couldn't win.

I've heard your quote many times, but it comes directly from the ultra right wing gun supporters. Sounds like your more a parrot than a thinker.

Cynicism is easy TG. Let's a person off the hook for trying to make improvements. There will always be exploited people making American goods inexpensively so let's buy those goods. Someone will always drive a hummer so there is no point to build environmentally friendly cars. Etc. Etc. I prefer to live trying to do something about the world I can access...creative engagement rather than de-creative. If only my kids or there kids or someone's kids on the other side of the planet benefit...that's fine.

@Craig....Your sarcasm doesn't happen to move the discussion forward.

Lyle: The manufacturers of glass bottles, tractors, and firearms provide American jobs. I suppose they could be retrained for a new line of work: Spending Quest Cards and having lots of free time.
But how will they eat when the US goes over the fiscal cliff?

Legal firearm sales in November and December of 2012 were at record numbers, I doubt it had anything to do with the Mayan calendar.
Just the notion of gun rights being lost has prompted good people to make the purchase now rather than later.

Craig, you seem to have not read the intro to this blog. Try again.

Craig...re: legal gun sales up..... And your point is what?

Brian: I thought it was clear in my comment when I stated, "Just the notion of gun rights being lost has prompted good people to make the purchase now rather than later."
The hyper attention by the media, Hollywood, and activists has prompted record sales of firearms.
Does this need further explanation? I think it speaks for itself.

Craig.... Not really. Many people don't like change is what I get out of it. Not all people are gun owners...not even most people own guns. Most people didn't run out and buy more guns... Only many people who have them and, undoubtedly some who did not. I dont think you can conclude much from that factoid.

Brian: I was at Cabellas on Dec. 23rd. The store was virtually empty with one exception: The Gun area. People were three deep looking at handguns. The line for paperwork was 2 hours long.

Craig, I wasnt at Cabellas. Nor were most of the people I know. What is your point?

Brian I will type real slow so you can keep up:
Gun sales in December were at record high levels.
That tells me there are more people worried about their rights being taken away from peacenicks in tye dyed T shirts- or Chancellor Obama.

You know Lyle, I normally take a passive view of your opinions but you have become more Carlson like on this topic. You and Carlson are not moving the topic forward either other than what most of us can read between the lines as "we don't like guns and people should not have them". I posted a proposed re-draft of the 2nd Amendment, yet you and Carlson have only posted blather with no substance. Type what you think how the next law should read as though you were an elected fed official putting your pair out their with the potential political consequence.

What do you know about the sixties and what does the word "liberal" mean? Your comment is really off the shelf content free.

Why do we have any restrictions Chris? What proposals do you have for reducing gun violence? The mother was a legal gun owner in CT. Did she need these weapons to defend herself? This many? These types? When you say that Lyles proposals will do NOTHING...what basis do you have for claiming this? The argument that there will always be insane people, that one can kill someone with anything, etc...have been addressed... So let's do nothing? We got rid of 90% of our nuclear weapons....imagine that was easy? We still have way to many but use it as a metaphor.... Restrictions make for a plausibly safer world.

Brian .. Gun Violence is a moral issue, Therein lies your answer

JB...did stasis stop the CT shooter? The current level of violence reflects, among other things, the current state of gun control, the massive amounts of weapons available, the type of weapons available and the ease of procuring those weapons. Also, obviously, it represents moral decay... But not only in inner cities. I researched stats on violence against women worl wide for two years. Violence is in every strata of every society. There is a huge moral problem that can't be addressed by men toting more guns. You can't decry violence if you are violent, if you support violence or if you elect those who do. You can't decry violence, I think, if you do nothing to stop it or if you support the corporations that profit enormously by the proliferation of weapons.

JB.....sorry but you must have been napping. Read the frigging blog.... The progressive movement has caused a culture of death? Now that is a grand claim! Extrapolate please! Progressives no doubt were responsible for the 200 million plus dead last century from military conflicts? Culture of death???? Please spell this out.

I own 3 AR 15 type rifles, all have a 30 round magazine shooting .223. I find the rifle very easy to use and clean. Over the past 12 months I have been buying as much .223 bulk ammo that I can get my hands on.

@Young Conservative....What in the hell are you arming yourself for; WW III? You can only use one weapon at a time and the .223 is not a hunting round, but a people killer. I can possible see one AR-15, but three; you're nutty as a fruitcake and wouldn't pass a mental health exam.

Why thank you Lyle for the insults. For your information I have killed a deer every year with my .223 round, they are used in many rifles including the Ruger Mini 14 which I use for deer hunting. Simple minded low information people like yourself claim to have an exclusive on firearms, but every time you open your cake hole you show yourself to be an ignorant bore. Why do I own 3 AR 15s? Because I like them, they are fun to shoot for target practice, varmints, and yes, for hunting.

Now Lyle, haven't you ever collected anything? Maybe some precious moments figurines?
I see nothing wrong with owning multiple firearms and amassing an "arsenal". I know people who have $250,000 invested in collector cars, few people call them nuts.
But if someone chooses to have $100,000 worth of guns and ammo, they fall into a stereotype?
I once owned an assault rifle, complete with a BAYONETTE, and 12,000 rounds of ammo. Does that mean I am 'cured', and no longer nuts?

@Young Conservative....You've just confirmed the level of your intelligence. Anyone who routinely hunts large game with such a light round isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. What's wrong, aren't you man enough to use a real deer rifle, such as a .30-06, .308 or some other round designed for deer hunting?

Wait a minute Lyle, wasn't it your side who criticized Sarah Palin for using such a high powered rifle to shoot an Elk?
You can't have it both ways.
One time people are chastised for using too powerful of a weapon and the next one is condemned for using a rifle that requires marksmanship.
If I like classic cars, is it wrong for me to own three?

@Craig....I understand people collecting, but I also understand when it becomes a dangerous obsession. I personally collect books and hate it every time I have moved.

If I ever decided to collect firearms, it would be antiques and not tactical weapons.

@Craig....Sorry, but it wasn't me who criticized Palin for shooting an elk with a high powered rifle. If she would have attempted it with a .223 round rifle, then I would have been all over that. Although Palin isn't the brightest person, she's smart enough to know to use the right firearm for the job.

As far as you collecting classic cars, I don't see that as a problem as long as it doesn't take food out of your family's mouths, or jeopardizes shelter.

Then you should understand if the person who collects is a law abiding person and has no history of mental illness, they should be able to collect guns just like one can collect comic books, trading cards, cars, or books.
Some of those books you collect may be in the category of 'dangerous' in the wrong hands. Would you support a registration of said books annually?
Glad we agree that Sarah Palin is a wise woman. ;-)

@Craig....The difference between collecting firearms verses other collectibles is the lethality of firearms. I know people who collect edge weapons and I have some of the same concerns with them. However, edge weapons aren't nearly dangerous since it requires to be up close and personal.

How do you know that the gun collector is not suffering from some undiagnosed mental illness. As far as registering books, if they are a concern for the safety of the public, then I would have to go along.

Lyle: You are right about mental illness.
HIPPA laws protect these people also.
A database that lists legal gun owners can be made public, but a list of nutcases can not.
I forget the name of the book but legend claims it was on a watch list by the FBI, as it could cause an attempt on a President's life.

Catcher in the Rye

@Craig...."Catcher in the Rye", must have been J. Edgar Hoover. He was a real nut case.

@Lyle: LOL, I didn't say it was recent.
Remember when Barack was running in '08, and he was pictured with a book by Farreed Zacharia? (sp?)
There were people who claimed that the Author was anti American. (which prompted me to read the book and discover nothing of the sort)

Hunt coyotes, prarie dogs and small game .. Yeah get a huntin rifle like a AK-47 eh Lyle

@Brian
The must deaths in the last hundred years were those countries that followed liberalism to it natural conclusion, communism. Contrary to the stats usually posted by those of you who hate the US, we are only responsible for small fraction. Within the US, it is the culture of dependency that has destroyed the inner city. If not, please explain how we still have a poverty problem when our government has spent trillions on welfare programs over the last 60 years.

I did read the blog. Wasn't your central theme Lyle's idea of gun control? Please explain how that would have stopped either the CT shootings or the 500 murdered in Chicago.

Lyle. Your ignorance is showing 'cause you don't like guns period. The .223 round (OK "bullet" for you and Carlson) was designed by Remington in the 1960's as a varmint round. Varmints at long ranges like prairie dogs, jack rabbits and coyotes which ranchers and others don't care for and can be legally hunted. Legally as in the fed and states acknowledge hunting then and sell licenses to do so. OK, now the arguments start over shooting "varmints". Whatever. So the army decided to adopt a newer and lighter rifle and decided to use the existing .223 rather than re-invent another cartridge (sorry! I meant "bullet") like they did with the .30-06. So, the .223 was designed for hunting initially. Look it up if you don't believe me. Now, in addition to not liking guns, it would seem the ignorance spreads further. Lyle, knowledge is power and you need to get your knowledge on before posting gross untruths on the internet.

Wisconsin law requires firearms be under lock and key in households with minor children.

@Avenging Angel....Arming one's self to take on a group or mob is insane. Where do you live, Somalia? Firearms are OK as they are held in moderation, just like everything else in life.

It's obvious that you know nothing about mental health and the due process that each citizen is eligible for. In the first place, how do you determine someone who is a danger to themselves or someone else? What particular malady are they suffering from and is it treatable? If you decide that someone needs to be detained, where do you place them and whose going to pay for it? The focus on people with mental health issues are much more complicated than registering and restricting firearms. magazines and ammunition.

Because of firearm owners refusing to impose meaningful self-regulation, on firearm owners will end up suffering.

I am not a head shrinker, but I know there are plenty of nuts among us.
Mob mentality makes normally sane people act like crazies, hence the need to have weapons capable of handling mobs. At least that is some people's opinion, and it is their right to be prepared for such event. In most cases it is highly unlikely, but as we have learned from Katrina...

@Craig....Mob mentality, you've got to be kidding, especially in suburbia where most legal gun owners live. We all have to live life based on probability and encountering a mob is a very low probability. Using your logic, then I probably should arm myself because of some neo-Nazi white supremacist.

As far as Katrina is concerned, it was the cops that had to be feared.

Lyle: If I was you, and I lived next door to a Neo Nazi nutcase- You're damn right I would be armed!
If that same Neo Nazi had crowds of fellow haters frequent his place near your residence- I would have several 30+ round clips preloaded and ready to go at a moments notice. Oh, and I would CC as well.
The reason for this Lyle?
Because your life is worth protecting- even at the expense of many nutcases' lives.
Regarding suburbia; if you were going to start a class war, would you take the war to the cities or suburbs?

I hope you know that I mean no disrespect at all.
1 decent human > dozens of thugs

Somalia!! really how about America Ask the people defending thier store during the LA riots and i thought you knew history

Johnny: Thank you.
I wanted to mention LA, but my memory could only come up with, "Can't we all get along?"

Brian, this comment reinforces my position that an irresponsible gun owner should be charged with a felony, therefore never to be able to legally possess a firearm again.

I will add: Children in Wisconsin over the age of 12 may use a firearm under the supervision of an adult. Thousands do every year without incident.

I agree with your comment about judgement. Unfortunately, it is impossible to regulate stupid. We hand out driver's licenses every year to people who talk on the phone, send text messages, do their makeup.......any number of poor judgement activities, but as long as they do not rack up enough points to get their license suspended, they continue to drive around, wreaking havoc on the populace.

The purpose of a car is to convey people or items from one point to another quickly and safely. The fact that it can be dangerous is an unintended characteristic.

The purpose of a firearm is to stop someone intent on doing you harm. It is what it is designed for.

AA...if guns were only used defensively there would be no gun violence. Our old Department of War changed it's name to the Department of Defense for the same reason: to spin the thought that we only act in defense.

And my firearms are specifically used to put my shots safely on target at the range, not kill people. Was your coffee shop designed to provide delicious coffee to your patrons, or poison them, specifically, if that was your twisted choice? Coffee, like firearns, is not a necessity in life.

Wacky talk...guns are killing machines and some people are as well. Both need to be restricted to varying degrees.

RB. I like your last suggestions. The first part, that the restrictions on guns cause an illegal gun trade has as much value as saying that the laws against theft cause illegal appropriation of property. Yes, when you make a law that also makes breaking that law illegal. So?

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

Where is the well regulated part kicking in with you?

NoB why not quote Jefferson on screwing slaves as well. Was everything he did or said a gold standard with you?

It may be interesting to you that many murders occur between spouses and lovers and family members as well...in fits of rage. Weapons at hand, or hands in the case of no other weapons, are practical as they are there. Had there been guns around instead of clubs or stones, do you imagine they wouldn't have been preferred? I think people use what is handy in most cases, particularly in fights..not premeditated murders.

Brian your response to I Said So shows your complete lack of logic and inability to string cause and effect together. I sure am glad you aren't a statistician.

The .22 long rifle cartridge (sorry Brian and Lyle, bullet!) is the most common round that is responsible for deaths in the US, either accidental or intentional.

Johnny, you must be hearing voices. Has ANYONE here talked about depriving a whole nation of arms?
Your fear makes you hearing challenged.

In another blog you asked me what my solution was. I wrote:
=============
“My solution Brian is to make a fundamental change socially. To prevent incidences like Sandy Hook (which is where this discussion started) gun owners need to secure their firearms, whether in a gun safe or gun trigger lock. This isn't something that can be legislated, it needs to be ingrained into peoples mindsets. Liberals need to accept that guns are here to stay, and accept that gun owners need to be responsible for their weapons.
To decrease inner city violence (where this discussion has migrated) will be even harder. Accept that 50 years of just throwing money at the problem has not worked. Those in poverty need to realize that they can achieve a better life, but the motivation and work needs to come from within. The government just can't give it to them, it will not last.”
==============
Go back 100 years to the end of the wild west. Carrying guns gradually became less common because the need became less than hassle to carry one. Societal change is what caused this, not legislation.

Punishing EVERYONE for the sins of a few is immoral, unconstitutional and just plain stupid!!!

AA...your "talking points," are purely conservative standards. You accuse me of backing a number of things I have never spoken about. It's ludicrous. You take the standard saw about only criminals will have guns and substitute only criminals will have ammo. You say as though with authority that none of my solutions will do anything to limit violence but do not build a case for that pronouncement.

Brian, what exactly have I accused you of "backing a number of things I have never spoken about"?

You want some evidence of the future failure of your "solutions". How many firearm homicides were committed by people that could legally carry a firearm? Or even have a firearm that is legal? Many of those murderers are not supposed to have guns, but they do anyway. Do you think one more piddly law restricting gun rights will really concern them?

AA..."That’s how you built up Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, ObamaCare, WIC, unemployment and all the other entitlement programs we have today."

Did I really?

AA... Improvements to issues as complex as gun violence require many different approaches. It isn't a (silver bullet fix as many of you might prefer). The pro gun folks, those concerned about second amendment rights regarding self protection with weapons...not merely sportspeople and hunters, seem to think that selling more guns is the answer and keeping the lid off pandoras box regarding what can be sold. AA...illegal gun sales is A HUGE part of the problem as are Internet gun sales, and some of the activity outside of gun shows. Do any of these manufacturers give a rip about who ends up with their weapons? NO! They care about selling more...not the consequences of where and how their weapons are used. Answer your question...how many homicides are committed by legal owners? Probably a lot...we can both look it up. If you knew the figure you would have tossed it out. Here's one...how many suicides are committed by legal gun owners with guns? Of course suicides would do it another so this category probably isn't on your list of gun violence. How about threats assisted by guns? How many times has a gun coerced some action? Rape, theft, forcing someone into an offer they can't refuse..... All gun violence and types of guns can be very persuasive I would think. You might hottie dude and run is he had a revolver...but a ten clip plus semi auto means someone is going to get hurt. Billions are made in illegal sales of legally made weapons.

Brian Carlson wrote: "AA..."That’s how you built up Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, ObamaCare, WIC, unemployment and all the other entitlement programs we have today."
Did I really?"
==========
Yes Brian, you did. That was a collective YOU encompassing past and present Liberals. I am willing to bet that YOU screamed at the TV when Bush 43 proposed privatizing a small part of Social Security, didn't you!!!

In 6 months he would come back in his tye died T shirt, fringe jacket, and Bell bottom jeans. Nothing will change, he will always be what he is.
6 months would give him more time to smoke um peace pipe.

SS

I get the idea that you and many others feel more comfortable when you can stick some label on ideas you don't like, attempting to toss the person behind the ideas into some camp of "others," you dismiss with ease.

I am not a socialist.

But to your "larger" statements.... I gather you are saying "to hell with the First Ammendment, for anyone who as much as writes the line "To Hell with the Second Amendment." I would have taken you for someone who holds to all the Amendments.

But I understand...

You want to take away my freedoms because you think they are dangerous.... "treasonous." Moreover, you support taking away my citizenship because I disagree with current gun legislation and am speaking for reform. No matter that half the country at least agrees with that general position including the president and 600 plus mayors. What I have said is treason and warrants being tossed out of the country!

Further, you want Patch, part of the free media I would think you would support, to censor me for six months for my treasonous blog title.

Let's see. You like labels. Which label conforms to the statements and actions you propose? Totalitarian? Fascist? Who would you like overseeing the arrests and exile of those who want select reforms in our gun laws? A Czar...dictator.... Perhaps a military junta? And a secret police.... we would need that.

SS.... If you read the blog for which you want to deport me... you may grasp the fact that the title had to do with my outrage that, given the atrocity before all of us, once again many hold laws written my men as immutable. I advocated revision...not abolishment. I did not propose a total ban on all guns anywhere in that blog or in any others. It is incredible to me that anyone is so reactionary that they want to throw someone out of his country because he wants improvement on restrictions that already exist.

Do you contest the present restrictions as huge violations of your "freedom?" Why not if not? You should be marching in protest of all the limitations on the right to drive WHATEVER you want to drive, WHEREVER you want to drive, HOWEVER you want to drive as well. You need to commute in an INDY car friend and by god, if you can't...someone has taken away your god given freedom! The government is shortening your effective life by having speed limits...think of all the time law abiding citizens could save if we had no speed limits! Damn socialists I guess.

Define what you mean by "freedom" at some point. I don't think you understand that freedom, with regard to civilization, must have form.

Johnny...I agree about limiting weapons for the military and even moreso to how and when they are used. You will recall that your President did run and win on cutting the military budget while his opponent wanted to add two trillion dollars to that same military budget over the next ten years. For all Os faults, and I agree he has involved the country in too many conflicts, or has not pulled out of the existing ones quickly enough...he was no Romney when it came to dumping bucks on military pursuits.

Brian that is a disingenuous statement. Obama was proposing a $2T cut over ten years in military funding- Romney was against the cuts (but not for increased spending), He wanted to rebuild and replenish the spent equipment wasted by a decade of war.

Hopefully these machines have a distinct hatred of liberals, as the liberal thought process is pretty self destructive in the first place.

From that article... But more importantly, LaFree said, there has been a “quiet revolution” in law-enforcement policy over the past few years.
“Police departments have become much more proactive across the country,” Lafree said. “They used to deploy resources to handle crime, but now they’re much more likely to target problems beforehand and emphasize a solution.”

More guns, more secret concealment = less crime. The police react to already committed crimes and have nothing to do with it.

The people packing the checkouts are not fearful of inner city blacks, they are fearful of anti constitutionalist liberals like yourself.

$$, that is a great starting point for Brian's discussion. Brian, post exactly how you would rephrase the 2nd amendment and we can comment appropriately.

The name is Smith. John Smith.

Irregardless of anyone's name, who care's Brian? I know where you live, where you work (part time) and your failed efforts to run a coffee shop. We have exchanged greetings face to face before. That is so yesterday news. None of this matters to me.

No, AA and I are very different individuals that agree on some issues and not on others. Don't go there.

Back to the challenge you were given. Let us read your draft overhaul to the second amendment.

Please.

Humor all of us just this once and follow through.

And mine is Bond, James Bond.

So the only thing holding back your redraft of the second amendment is my real name. Sounds like a lame excuse to get out of saying you don't have anything to offer. You have been saying we need to have the conversation, so lets have it. It's your blog so it's only appropriate that you start.

You keep talking gun control but have yet to say exactly what.

As expected neither of you will use your real names. This is a testament to your fear and reluctance to be associated with your own thoughts in the towns in which you live. Who is evading what? I have a blog... To write a blog you must use your real name. That takes a willingness to be known for what you say and think. Neither of you apparently have this and it's obvious, I would hazard to say, to all readers. No surprise.

Brian, your mockery don't excuse the fact that either you have no solution, or do not have one that the majority of Americans would find practical or acceptable.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay had their reasons for keeping their names off the Federalist Papers, and I have my reason's for using the moniker I do. I can only assume $$andSense does as well. And it doesn't matter what they are.

Amendment II

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.

I think then dropping that first part makes sense as there are no well regulated militias extant.

The second part is vague. ....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It seems to me that a repressive state could announce that you certainly may have one small caliber revolver...and not be infringing on your right to bear arms.
On the other hand, a citizen may decide that he has a right to keep land mines on his property, to park an armed tank in his driveway, to mount a machine gun on his Jeep...and claim his right to bear arms. Arms could be RPGs, plastique, hey...what about an armed drone?

To my mind, the word "arms," should be qualified relative to civilians both in kind, in destructive capability and as to use. I am not a lawyer as I said but the line could say "Arms," as described in clause whatever.

A need to limit.... Not a need timidity. Ipadism!

No solutions = part of the problem. No solutions = then shut the hell up. In my work world you either contribute to solving a problem or you get sent packing. If your demeanor that you are presenting here is any indication of what you do for a living, then either your employer is a fool or you are scam artist.

When was that piece written and why...do you suppose? Don't you feel that Your right to keep and bear" ARMS" per the 2nd A has been infringed upon by limiting you to "firearms?" After all, when the military turns to state terrorism ala Syria...they will have bigger weapons. The tyrants are letting you have the small stuff to distract you...to give you a false sense of confidence.
I like websters definition btw....small arms. If you are talking about preventing an intruder from getting you in your home, or a car jacking, etc., small should serve you well. Not sure what the governments definition is ... It needs clarification.
"....without limit" seems very vague to me. Self protection without limit allows anyone to kill someone else based on an extrajudicial determination that their life was clearly likely tone lost. When only two people are there...who can ascertain who threatened who, who drew first, etc? It also allows an explanation for any violent action... Self defense. One on one or country against country.... Violence is perpetual justified in this manner ...self defense...protecting national security...etc. Now we have preemptive strikes.

I am well aware of both acts and they corroborate the sense of my position. Freedoms...absolute freedom to do whatever the he'll you like....is limited by civilized societies with laws ands acts setting parameters on what may be done legally. These laws or acts are designed by thoughtful humans to be the best ideas they have to deal with the issues at hand. They are changed when improvements seem clearly necessary, modified to fit new technology or events, etc. This is the history of our constitution, our laws and will continue to be. At least half the country you are part of wants to see modification of existing laws. I have no doubt we will see change. It will not SOLVE the problem any more than the laws on board that you don't want changed have SOLVED the problem. Hopefully they will improve the situation.
Do you understand condescending one?

$$andSense....The weapons that you have listed; the Henry Rifle, etc; were designed initially as military weapons. The Colts, S&W, et al; even though could fire multiple rounds required extensive reloading procedures. It wasn't until the modern style cartridge was invented allowing for quicker reloading, did the process of reloading became less cumbersome. Over time, magazines and clip capacities have been modified because of military and law enforcement needs, not civilian use. In addition, firearm actions have rapidly improved over time. There is a big difference between single action, double action, lever action, bolt action, pump action, semi-automatic to fully automatic, all primarily used as military force multipliers.

If you remember the reason behind the Federal Assault Weapons Ban law of 1994 was in response to a McDonalds mass shooting in CA. You are clearly attempting to rationalize the need for .223 weapons for civilian use, when developed, they were strictly designed for military use. I initially trained on an M1, followed by an M14, neither of which I would choose as a personal weapon.

As far as I'm concerned, AR-15 style weapons are for people that want to "play soldier or marine".

Well Lyle, I guess you have never seen Jerry Miculek in action with a simple revolver. He can put the hurt on target, reload and repeat in less than one breath. Full auto shooters can't match him. He is by no means alone in his skill. Every law has some knee jerk reason behind them due to either some recent or feared future event. So now that you have entered the room, lay out your proposal for another new "law" because Carlson cannot come up with anything but generic anti-gun blab.

@$$andSense....Your straw man argument is not going anywhere. Who really cares about someone who has developed extraordinary skills other than a sideshow attraction. Most weapons have been developed for the lowest common skill level.

As far as proposing an amendment to the 2nd amendment; I am not prepared to offer such. I am not sure if it is required.

LYLE, here is advertising copy from a random site found by searching AR15. let's see the hot buttons the merchandisers shoot for so to speak. They know their market best... not old commies like you and I!
"Bushmaster military carbines and rifles are helping defend freedom around the world. Proven in the most severe conditions, rugged and reliable Bushmasters are lightweight, accurate, and easy to shoot and maintain.
So whether duty calls you to the jungle or the desert... to mountain snows or urban landscapes... highly adaptable Bushmaster weapon systems are battle tested and field ready."
Clearly battle comes first... They want these fellas dreamin about soldierin' That's the hook.
http://www.bushmaster.com/world/our_world.asp

Seems appropriate for those touting their 2nd Amendment rights to participate as a militia, Brian...

CD, if the 2nd is immutable, you would think by their heroic and patriotic defense of the same that they would be lining up! What aren't they pressing for their constitutional rights on the first part of the second.... Haven't they been infringed upon??? But of course, if you're in a militia you might actually be in harms way and someone would decide where you ran, what you risked, etc. No lone rangers in the well regulated militia. No vigilantes. No closet warriors.

If the situation arises where the militia is needed, I have little doubt that they would take up arms for the cause. Not sure why you would think that keeping arms makes one a vigilante or a lone ranger. They aren't taking it upon themselves to patrol the streets looking to take down rapists, murderers and the like...

Little C... Not sure this will make sense. I understand rage. I have a daughter. The rage of the parent coming on this scene is off the top of the scales. This was not, however, self defense, not was he defending his child by killing the man. We live in a country of LAWS. Stopping the assault, disabling the assailant was within the domain of law. He continued as far as I can see.... to beat the man to death. In martial arts, students are well apprised, or should be, of how to use their weapon and to what degree their killing art is permissible. I don't know if he was a martial artist, but after disabling this sick bastard, he could have presuably turned it over to police. His rage and even the incredibly sick nature of the crime does not, under law, justify extrajudicial killing.

C...you are simply wrong on many points. I am sorry she was in a position where she had to use a gun, but I have never said, nor would I say in this case, that people shouldn't have guns or should not be allowed to defend themselves. There is no monolithic block of opinion on anything called "liberal" so, making statements like you last, "Stories like this make liberals like you sick to your stomachs...not because a thug tried to rob and probably rape/murder, but because somebody used a gun.", simply betrays a limited grasp you of political thought and opinion.

That story has been manipulated by the media.
It is not applicable in any debate.
As time passes, we are learning that much of the information was false, and withheld to sell a news story.

@Avenging Angel....I am old enough to remember riots going back to the Watts riots in 1965 and on. It's questionable if protecting property is the same as protecting one's life and limb. Thankfully, the kind of civil unrest that requires the use of self defense happens rarely and usually are isolated. To use past occurrences as a rationalization for current behavior is faulty logic and disingenuous.

To ignore past occurrences as though it will never happen again is faulty logic also.
History has a way of repeating itself, especially when we never seem to learn from the past.

AA,
Racist liberal coward Lyle would rather see the asian, or white, no arms themselves and become the victim to a mob of thug animals.

Big cities riot because their MBA team wins/loses a game. It doesn't take much to get things rolling. We are, and have been for some time, borrowing $1.x trillion per year (beyond what we collect from tax revenue) to fund this government's operations. We have 140 million individuals in this country on some form of government assistance (whether it is an actual entitlement - SS, Medicare, etc - or if it is simply some form of welfare is irrelevant to this point)(that's nearly half the population of this country). When this country's debt comes due, inflation goes through the roof (they're contemplating minting two $trillion dollar coins to pay off debtors) , and the government finally realizes that it cannot possibly maintain these "obligations" to it's citizens, as well as it's borrowers...that is when all hell will break loose. Grocery stores carry three days worth of inventory (when there is not a panic). You can't find 5.56 in the stores today, as it is.

Sure, this is absolutely worst, apocalypse case stuff...but tell me you can't see a shade of this type of thing happening...even if it's for a few days while the boys and girls in Washington play their games.

Brian will say I'm just scared. Maybe. I prefer to see it as being pragmatic, having been in unfriendly places before (but with 15 really close "friends", all heavily armed). Si vis pacem para bellum.

The real problem is that the laws we have are eithr not enforced, or are sentenced to lightly. Until we have mandatory sentencing, which liberals hate,and we enforce the laws we already have, writing new laws so we can feel better about ourselves will do no good. And any change to an Amendment, must go throught the Amendment process. Change anything you like, as long as 75% of the states agree and you get a super majority in the house and senate. The President doesn't even get a vote.

Brian,

Are you willing to violate someone's "Civil Rights" to save a life? Because that is pretty much what it is going to take to get this done. Honestly, it is what weapon you own but who owns it.

The point is Brian is that YOU keep looping around and not suggesting ANY fix other than flailing the air about too many people getting killed with firearms. You remind me of people who can say "no" to anything but do not have the capacity to back up "no" with anything tangible. To state it another way, you are akin to a politician that has no solid convictions wherein they avoid clear and concise words to make a point. Gray is your intellectual domain because it is safe. You apparently failed philosophy and logic in college, assuming you went to college. Stick with the arts. Lots of colors there. The aforementioned disciplines are out of your league.

Brian, there is no effort involved at all when I mock Lyle - it's just too easy. However, you libs are so worried about someone's civil rights being violated that you miss the fact that most of these mass killings were done by individuals who were known to have mental issues. The bottom line is that we need a bigger effort to keep those individuals from gaining access to "any weapon" as oppossed to just banning you so called "assault style' weapons.

Not to be a grammar nazi, but shouldn't it be "moot" instead of "mute"?

Maybe he's making some reference to a question going unasked.

Haha... My iPad knows all, anticipates all and lives a nanosecond or two on front of all words in process. Moot of course but I like the poetic resonance of a mute point!

iPad? Interesting--'Ruble's Conscience' also posted 'mute' instead of 'moot'.

I find it nearly impossible to make comments on my tablet--it takes forever to scroll down to the right place...

No gentlemen I meant mute. Reason? Because when you start talking to liberals about the real problems there is nothing but silence. It's great to sit around and talk about how we should have tougher gun laws as opposed to keeping them out of the hands of those individuals that shouldn't have them.

Geez Dollars, I guess you really grasped what I have been talking about and put me in my place. For awhile I thought you just don't like me...you get very emotional when you come back at what I say. But your cogent analysis is really on point. I guess I should just turn my blog badge in...or give it to you.

@Bottom Line...If it is true that we should incarcerate and institutionalize all people that don't meet certain prescribed standards, then we might as well be living in a totalitarian state where we don't have due process. Your simple solution will never work, the problem is much too complicated. Currently there is only one nation that incarcerates more citizens than we do; China. What does that say about us as a society?

Ruble

I do not like wasting satire on a person like you that I think has intellectual capability, but can you just get the words out as to what you want to see done to fix the problem. Please. Soon.

@$$andSense....Arron Rogers is a highly skilled athlete and is amazing to watch. However, he and others that have extraordinary skills, although to be admired, are limited to those select few and not enjoyed by the general population. In your example the ability to fire rapidly and repeatedly falls into that category. I have watched those types of shooting demonstrations and find them entertaining, but as entertainment only, the same as watching skilled athletes. The difference between someone who can take a single or double action revolver and do stunts and tricks is much different than a limited skilled young person picking up a a semiautomatic weapon and spraying a group of people with bullets creating carnage. That is why your argument contains a straw man fallacy.

Lyle
You jumped right from admring skilled firearms handlers and quarterbacks, to crazies that kill. Huh? No shit that a killer has nothing to do with anyone persons skils at whatever their legal interests are ? What is your point here? You and Carlson sharing the same meds?

Sorry... http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/bushmasters_horrible_ad_campaign/

"The culture of violence that Dollar guy seems to think doesn't exist is best represented by the words of your own mouths and the ads in the catalogues and magazines that excite your fancy."

Now we get a better picture on Carlson's agenda, though he has no guts to come out and state it, now includes 1st amendment restrictions, "...the ads in the catalogues and magazines that excite your fancy."

OK Brian, so now it is the 1st and 2nd amendments under attack by you. My 2:19 am post was pure sarcasm so don't do your word twisting on me.