Judith Miller - My Real Gun Control Fantasy
it looks like Bill O'Reilley and Miller get their misinformation from the same source. Be sure to read and an your pro-RKBA comments and emails to both pinheads.
'We need to take control of such weapons to assure that they don't fall into the hands of criminals.'
So, Ms. Miller, to fix this, I take it you propose to give that control to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. this is the same agency that illegally FORCED gun dealers to sell thousands of military-grade weapons to drug cartels, weapons that killed hundreds of people.
I see.
Somehow, I think those weapons are safer in the hands of law abiding citizens.
Actually the 2nd Amendment DOES give us the right to own “combat weapons”.
The founders knew that to fight an effective war you would need arms that are the same if not superior to that of the army you are fighting. In the Revolutionary war we armed with muskets and with rifles. Rifles were superior to the muskets used by the British. That gave us an advantage due to the accuracy of the rifles used. We also used guerrilla tactics to fight and didn’t follow the standard “stand and fire” methods used by many armies of the time.
This writer is a total fool and has little knowledge of the history that lead up to the writing of the Constitution.
If any president did what he is saying then it would be a time to rise up and fight back against any government that would try to keep me from having the arms I need to fight against such tyrants.
I have a dream to counter liberal idiots.
I have a box with a red button on it. When I push it, liberals would be instantly banished to the other side of the universe.
It turns into a nightmare, though. Every time, I break the button by pushing it too hard.
And where exactly is THAT stated in the text of the 2nd Amendment?
"The AR-15 assault rifle is a military style weapon..."
The Kentucky long rifle and the flintlock are also military style weapons. They were once used to to overthrow a tyrant many years ago. That's what they are for!
Her fantasy would be better served with a cucumber.
What a buffoon.
The 2nd Amendment isn’t just about owning guns. It is about Citizens being able to resist an oppressive government. Ownership of automatic and semiauto weapons are exactly what the 2nd Amendment stands for today, not hunting rifles and bows.
And then comes the chorus line of redheaded Rockettes...
This idiot and BOR both toss aroud the AWB as if it were a magical talisman. I know several folks who got their ARs and AKs via perfectly legal means during the tenure of the AWB. Their guns are not equipped with such evil features as flash hiders (aiiiieeee!) bayonet lugs (oh noes) or adjustable stocks (ohthehugemanatee!) Which is to say that the AWB was one of the most profoundly silly laws ever passed.
The 2nd Amendment isn’t just about owning guns. It is about Citizens being able to resist an oppressive government. Ownership of automatic and semiauto weapons are exactly what the 2nd Amendment stands for today, not hunting rifles and bows.
We might want to reevaluate our decisions that the Constitution protects gangs and gangland activity, or that free speech covers the saturation of violence and crime in entertainment. For that matter, most of pop culture is contrary to peaceful and secure civilization.
Another ignoranus heard from.
When are people on the left finally going to realize that the language of the 2nd Ammendment is clear in regards to what it was speaking about. The term used was “Arms.” This specifically implies military weaponry suitable for militia use.
The skirmish of 1775 at Lexington & Concord was when the British Army sent troops with the specific purpose to take away “arms” held by the colonists. What they were attempting to seize were “muskets.” At that time a “musket” was a smooth bore weapon that only had ONE use, and that was military. Because it was smoothbore it could be rapidly loaded and fired, but it was very inaccurate. That is why opposing armies lined up to fire at each other at close range.
A “musket” had NO civilian use. In fact civilians used “rifles” that were not smoothbore. A rifle has spiral groves in it that cause the bullet to rotate (like a thrown football) giving it accuracy. A rifle was suitable was hunting and not practical as a weapon because it could not be rapidly loaded, and after a few shots became so fouled with powder it could no longer be loaded without cleaning first.
The point is that a “rifle” was not a “military weapon” at that time and, by the tactics of the day, pretty much useless for conventional warfare. Whereas a “musket” was useless for hunting, and it only served to be used as a “military weapon.”
Now knowing that the drafters of the constitution were reacting to things they suffered under British rule. One can easily realize that when they wrote “right to keep and bear arms” they WERE refering to military type weapons...not hunting equipment.
Also, since a rationale provided in the ammendment, “A well regulated militia...” for this right (both an individual and collective one), it is extremely clear they were talking about weapons of warfare. The ONLY potential (I say potential because I don’t want to argue hardcase) restriction that could be “implied” was that the “arms” would be that suitable for an individual soldier. Therefore, an M16 type weapon would be protected, but I don’t think a howitzer (for individual use) would be...I don’t argue with folks about this because it causes too much discord.
The KEY to me is that an individual is guaranteed the right to keep and bear “military type” arms consistent with the military of the day. The purposes being for individual protection and when called upon by constitutionally allowed or mandated authority, for protection of community, state, & country.
Hey Judith!
How many Aurora victims were killed or wounded with buckshot from the Remington 870, pump-action shotgun, vs. the number killed or wounded from AR rounds?
Hint: The AR was the second weapon used, and jammed early.
That’s the whole PROBLEM with liberals, Judith. You live in a DREAM WORLD where passing a law is presumed to solve the problem- whatever it may be. This makes it easy to go on your self-righteous way believing you have dealt with the issue of madmen with guns. Except you haven’t- you are not able to do so because it cannot be done.
Psssttt...since there have been weapons there have always been lunatics who on occasion go on murdering rampages killing people. This is part of the human condition lady and you can’t legislate it away. It’s awful and it’s shocking and there isn’t one damn law you can pass to change it.
My advice to you- go listen to the tape from MSNBC yesterday with the brother of one of the dead from Aurora. He’s an adult with an attitude of maturity you’d do well to emulate.
Dear libtard Judith,
Without the 2nd ammendment, you lose the 1st ammendment. Without those willing to protect their God given rights, you would not have the right to spew your garbage in a “free press.”
Idiots...
As Krauthammer recently pointed out, the problem the left faces is that the “gun lobby” is the American people. And Americans won’t accept another “assault weapons” ban.
If they want a civil war, they can push a law through—like Obama’s fiat amnesty for illegals or his `Affordable Health Care’— and they can point the way, and we will point the guns.
It may be coming anyway but that would do it.
Now why don't you go make yourself useful and write about your fantasy involving a Shetland pony and a German Shepard.
Mizz Miller
I read a small portion of your fantastical screed before I came to the conclusion you are in a world of bubble-gum songs, daffodil skies, and sunshine all the day.
Here in the REAL world, it’s not so simple, and it never has been. The 2nd Amendment, which you seem to think should be limited, Let’s see if you can understand a basic reason that the Founders (those EVIL WHIT E MEN) thoughtfully and deliberately added this amendment.
You’ll notice that it’s the 2nd Amendment for a reason: The 1st Amendment grants you the Right to Speak, to Worship (or not) as you wish, to disallow the Gov’t from aligning itself with any 1 religion (but to respect them nonetheless), to assemble peaceably, and to complain to or about the government without fear of punishment or reprisals.
The founders knew from experience that these are the most important needs for a free people to survive. However, they also know from bitter experience that you need to back up these rights by being on an equal footing with that same government. And If the Government is armed, it’s people must be armed as well. THAT is the basis of the 2nd amendment. NOt to only protect oneself and property from criminals, but more importantly, from the Government.
And even if we are so well armed with AK-47’s and M1 Garands, AR-15’s, rifles, hand-guns, derringers, in truth we are still outgunned by .50 cal machine guns and Tanks and Helicopter Gunships.
Now personally, while I don’t see a need for me to own such larger weapons with greater firepower, others do, and I shall not prevent them from arming themselves accordingly.
Pity this is all going over your empty head. But maybe if you’d still consider 1 thing, you’ll understand our position: When a people cannot fight back against government, they become slaves, their every action scrutinized, their every word examined, and their very freedoms and fortunes are forfeit, including yours.
Judith Miller - My Real Gun Control Fantasy
Bad example Judith! As those “4 ex-Presidents” walk away after the speech,surrounded by their ARMED bodyguards.
