James Pashia wrote:
> News Flash for those of you wanting firearm control: if you think that
> firearms will every be banned in this country, you are kidding yourself,
> and here is why: $ . . .
> Yes, with the billions of dollars worth of firearm, ammunition and
> accessory sales . . .

Interesting that you mention money.
- - -
Phase One - Repeal the right to keep and bear arms.

Phase Two - A Tax; Following adoption of the constitutional amendment, a bill to tax:

1. There is imposed an annual tax on each and every firearm in any household in the United States as follows:

a. first firearm, $10
b. second firearm, $20
c. third firearm, $30
d. fourth through ninth firearms, $100 each
e. firearms in excess of the ninth, $1,000 each.

2. This tax is assessed and payable on each April 15 for firearms held by a household at the end of the preceding year, to be paid with a schedule listing firearm type, manufacturer and serial number, the schedule submitted along with the tax return of such member of the household as the members of the household may choose, with other members attaching a copy of that schedule to their tax returns as well indicating by which member the tax will be paid. Where firearms are owned by a partnership, if there is only one general partner the arms shall be included with the schedule of that general partner; where there is more than one general partner, the partners shall choose which partner will report the firearms. Where firearms are owned by a corporation, the corporation shall report and pay tax as if it were a household. Where fiscal years do not coincide with calendar years, reporting shall be as of the end of the previous fiscal year. Where firearms are owned by a legitimate museum, the museum shall report the ownership annually as if it were a household, but shall be exempt from the tax except for the penalties in section 4 below.

3. This tax may be avoided by selling the firearm to a licensed gun dealer or by turning the firearm over to an official firearm collection location before December 31 of the prior year. Once a month such collection locations shall turn collected firearms over to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for destruction, except that the Bureau may withhold from destruction such firearms as are of historical interest for later donation to an appropriate museum.

4. Any firearm lost or stolen will incur a $1,000 penalty in the reporting year it was lost or stolen. For any such lost or stolen firearm that is subsequently recovered by the owner that $1,000 penalty shall be rescinded and refunded, except if the firearm has been used in the commission of a crime chargeable as a felony an additional $1,000 penalty will be imposed.

5. For each firearm sold by a licensed firearm dealer that is subsequently used in the commission of a crime chargeable as a felony a $1,000 penalty will be imposed against that dealer for each such year in which that firearm was used in such a crime.

6. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Internal Revenue Service shall jointly promulgate regulations for administering this Act.

- - -
Hey, this could help balance the budget!

Best wishes, --Mike , http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm

Mike Barkley, Candidate for Congress
www.mjbarkl.com
13 hours ago · · ·

James Pashia
wont come anywhere near the taxes generated by sales of firearms. Nice try. #4. Wont happen, violation of due process. #5. Wont happen, The courts have already held that dealers and manufacturers cannot be held liable for the misuse of an item,particularly as the court has to show negligence as designed was intentional and willful. 11 hours ago ·

James Pashia
also, exactly how do you intend to levy the tax on firearms owned? since a large number of them arent registered to an individual through a 4473, but through private sales, how do you plan on taxing what you dont have on record? i suppose the same way the "brilliant" folks at the IRS track all that unreported income. a law like that gets passed, how do you go about checking? 4th and 14th amendment prevents the police from coming into my house without a warrant. I suppose you are going to want gun owners to wear a sign on thier clothes and thier house so people know who the gun owners are. will it be star shaped? Yep, another step backwards to Nazi Germany where noone could resist the government because all the guns were registered then confiscated. yeah.......not happening here. Keep spinning your wheels, i find it entertaining. As is often misattributed to Adm. Yamamoto saying "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." there arent that many cops or military in America, so confiscation at one house, leaves thier backs open to the other houses in the neighborhoods, I suppose you plan on hiring Superman to confiscate them all, since he is bulletproof? The US would delve into civil war at that point because of the rights violations. I damn sure wouldnt want to be viewed as an oppressive government rep or figure at that time. Gun control again sounds good and easy on paper, just like RISK, but actual implementation is not going to be easy or risk free.
11 hours ago ·

James Pashia
Also, find your buddies birth certificate yet?
11 hours ago ·

Karl von Busse
so not only do you want to repeal the 2nd but you want to violate our rights under the 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and possibly the 6th? Bravo!!! Show your true colors to the public!
5 hours ago ·

Alex Ferrier
I think he just did. You know the saying. To defend against all enemy's both foreign and domestic Michael Barkley is a prime example of a domestic enemy. and I don't for a second doubt my assessment of him. He can be stooped but he cant be... reasoned with using logic. Due to his absolute devotion to destroying the country and forcing his will on other unwilling people people. Luckily his talking points are held by a small m minority and he is considered to radical even by our globalist controlled corporate propaganda media. People like him will be a threat in the future if people like us ever stop fighting them.See More
43 minutes ago ·

Karl von Busse
Folks like him have existed for the entire history of this country. See Torries. All that the freedom loving American citizen can do is speak out like we are doing here. The biggest problem is that the media has turned sharply left. "Whoever controls the media, controls the mind."
-Jim Morrison
36 minutes ago

Karl von Busse
I am surprised the admins here allow him to continue......he is hurting their cause badly.
36 minutes ago

Alex Ferrier
He just shows how desperate they are and he is showing his true colors
35 minutes ago

Karl von Busse
Not desperate.....most of them have their hearts in the right place. They just do not understand that the only way the Constitution can be guaranteed is through the 2nd amendment. It is there to make sure that we the people can defend ourselves against government tyranny if all else fails. Without the 2nd what happens when someone like Chavez, Ghadaffi or Castro decides to abolish the courts?
32 minutes ago

Alex Ferrier
Your right Karl not everyone is a fighter and not everyone has a cause that they would die for.
3 hours ago ·

Karl von Busse wrote:
> so you are a long winded talking head but a talking head nontheless.

Um, I think if you add up a word count on the two sides of this issue in this forum, you will find that you and your fellow pro-RKBA are posting multiples of what the repeal advocates are posting.

Tony Seibel wrote:
> ...well that, and people going all super religious
> gay-hater on me. especially the jerks in my town.

What's that about?

Michael Carrigee wrote:
> You can't say ANYTHING about the pro-rkba crowd when you are arguing with
> 2 peace officers.

That's interesting. Who might that be?

With this being a federal election issue and campaign, they might chat with their attorneys about Civil Rights Conspiracy and RICO before wandering off into intimidation, harassment, or threats, or anything that a reasonable person might interpret as being such even if they didn't intend for it to be that way: "Aw, we wuz jus' playin' with'im" is not the standard.

- - -

---

---

HELLER AND McDONALD:

James Pashia wrote:
> BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH....ILL HUFF AND PUFF AND BLOW YOUR CONSTITUTIONALY
> PROTECTED away, oop, this is what the SUPREME COURT SAYS: "We are aware of
> the problem of handgun violence in this country, . . .

In essence, that's Justice Scalia's apology at the end of his opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia, which makes a review of Heller and of McDonald v. Chicago appropriate. From Heller you might also quote ( using findlaw.com copies, which unfortunately are not paginated so I'm listing the quotes by Opinion and Paragraph numbers):

Heller, Justice Scalia Majority Opinion, III 1st para.:
" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.. . . 'Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
"Footnote 26
"We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

For 200 years, RKBA was a collective/militia right, until Heller. In his Heller majority opinion, Justice Scalia crawled out onto the limb of Second Amendment individual rights and away from the tree of militia collective rights, and then proceeded to saw the limb off behind himself, leaving the main part of the tree to crash to the ground and his limb floating in thin air with no visible means of support. In the process, he left no constitutional basis for the remaining prohibitions quoted in the paragraph above.

In most every case there are moments when the only real but never stated rationale for a ruling is "because I'm the judge" or "I don't feel like it" or "I don't want to," and then come up with some legalistic rationale after the fact. In the aftermath of Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller, gun control relies exclusively on these types of rationales for its judicial support. It's basis in law is gone, vanished, severed. And McDonald extended that to the states.

Further, McDonald, Justice Alito Plurality Opinion,II.B, last para.:
"Cruikshank, 92 U. S., at 553, 559. The Court wrote that the right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose "is not a right granted by the Constitution" and is not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Id., at 553. "The second amendment," the Court continued, "declares that it shall not be infringed; but this ... means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."
...an assertion that is unsupported.

Cruikshank is routinely criticized anyway. I have not yet found the reasoning that the Cruikshank Court uses to limit to the legislature wording that on its face would seem to cover the entirety of government, including, under McDonald, the states. The wording of the Second Amendment is more like the Fourth, which covers all of government, not just the legislative like the First ("Congress shall make no law. . . .") "not be infringed" would seem to be a lot broader than "Congress shall make no law". Basically, what part of "shall not be infringed" allows ANY regulation? If there is some basis somewhere else in the Constitution that allows the government (and state governments after McDonald) to regulate a personal right to keep and bear arms, once it is severed from the militia/collective right as the Court did in Heller and McDonald, I'd like it pointed out please.

McDonald, Justice Breyer dissent, II.B., 14th para.:
"Rather, the Court has haphazardly created a few simple rules, such as that it will not touch "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," or "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms ." Heller, 544 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54-55); Ante, at 39 (plurality opinion). But why these rules and not others? Does the Court know that these regulations are justified by some special gun-related risk of death? In fact, the Court does not know. It has simply invented rules that sound sensible without being able to explain why or how Chicago's handgun ban is different. . . ."

Heller, Justice Stevens Dissent I para 1 under "The right of the people":
"the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments is not so limited; for even felons (and presumably irresponsible citizens as well) may invoke the protections of those constitutional provisions. The Court offers no way to harmonize its conflicting pronouncements."

Except for the quoted gratuitous words of Justice Scalia, felons and insane persons have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms on which the government may not infringe. Tsk.

Heller, Justice Breyer Dissent, V, 4th para from end:
"Nor is it at all clear to me how the majority decides which loaded "arms" a homeowner may keep. The majority says that that Amendment protects those weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." Ante, at 53. This definition conveniently excludes machineguns, but permits handguns, which the majority describes as "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home." Ante, at 57; see also ante, at 54-55. But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority's reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun...."

And here it is:

Heller, Justice Breyer Dissent, 3rd para from end:
"The argument about method, however, is by far the less important argument surrounding today's decision. Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today's decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. . . . ."

And that's before McDonald. . .

Until Heller and McDonald, gun control was arguably permissable - thereafter, not.

Repeal of RKBA is appropriate and necessary and urgent.

Karl von Busse wrote:
> Michael is not going to care what the SCOTUS says on the issue. His ilk
> never does as they assume that they know better.

These two decisions (Heller, McDonald) are very unusual. They include a total of 8 Opinions, with no majority for McDonald, 184 footnotes, one Appendix, and a claws-out flame war between Justice Scalia and Justice Stevens the like of which I don't recall seeing elsewhere. From day one in law school we are taught that judicial respect and restraint are the Rule, and this sort of acrimony is Just Not Done. It's kinda hard to respect the Court when the Justices are rolling around in the mud screaming and yelling and pulling hair. . . .

In McDonald, footnote 22 of his dissent, Justice Stevens reminds that if we don't like Justice Scalia's opinion, we may use our Article V powers to reverse his ruling. And that's the purpose of this Facebook group.

---

---

- - -

James Pashia wrote:
> Lol, he said "make my day" about my comment about noone being bullet proof,
> so he has run out of democratic slogans to spew that I have him referencing
> Clint Eastwood attributes.

Actually, my point is, do not mistake my desire to see the quantity of firearms reduced as some sort of pacifism in the face of danger, such as veiled or overt threats from you.

Karl von Busse wrote:

> We should let the Government keep us safe!!!
>
> (CBSNews)
>
> WASHINGTON - Keeping American weapons from getting into the hands of Mexican
> gangs is the goal of a program called "Project Gunrunner." . . . .

...this is disappointing. It sounds like it's time for hearings, resignations & prosecutions, as well as adding some adult supervision. Sigh.

Best wishes, --Mike http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm
Mike Barkley, Candidate for Congress
on Sunday · · ·

James Pashia
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Sunday at 5:08pm

Kyle Franceschini
"facepalm" what did I tell you, he is hiding behind words now.
Sunday at 5:13pm ·

James Pashia
OK, im done with this discussion, i have better things to do with my time than debate something that should be obvious in dealing with human behavior. Bullies will take if there is noone to stop them, the weak are preyed upon by the bullies... and other predators unless the weak have an equalizer. The 2nd Amendment exists in my opinion to safeguard the personal safety of the individual and family as well as give the individual the ability to resist an oppressive and totalitarian government. If you disagree, thats your opinion, however if you want my guns, [a bit of Greek] .
Sunday at 5:40pm ·

Karl von Busse
wow.....long winded response that once again says nothing. I notice that you answer NONE of the questions posed to you. You have also seemed to single me out.......which is fine by me. You should have chosen better......I am to much for you to handle.
Sunday at 5:57pm ·

Michael Carrigee
@Michael: My uncle just won the Bronze star in Afghanistan and is serving do you honestly think I'm part of the RBKA?!
Sunday at 8:33pm · ...

News Flash for those of you wanting firearm control: if you think that firearms will every be banned in this country, you are kidding yourself, and here is why: $
Yes, with the billions of dollars worth of firearm, ammunition and accessory sales that happen every year, the taxes that are generated, and the government agencies created to govern and "regulate" are too great. The government, while it would like to unarm the populace, realizes there is more money to be made, in allowing and taxing the firearm industry. Its like the war on drugs, if the war on drugs was won tomorrow, how much unemployment would there be with all the government agencies that deal with, treat, enforce illegal drug use, suddenly were no longer needed? Federal Agencies would collapse, Police departments would lose grants, Political persons would lose ways to get rid of competitors and whistle blowers as well as illicit income. Go ahead and advocate for gun control, it just causes a "scare" which makes my friends more money due to increased sales, and provides more tax money for the government. And the government is all about getting more money. Its always about money.
on Sunday · · ·

another person saved by an evil gun!!!
http://www.sunjournal.com/franklin/story/989993

Police investigate Wilton home invasion
www.sunjournal.com
WILTON -- Police are investigating a home invasion on Main Street Monday night. A resident of the home fired a shotgun and the invaders, multiple people, fled, said Wilton Police Chief Dennis Brown. Shortly after 9 p.m., the resident heard a noise at the back door of the home. He wal...
on Saturday · · ·

We should let the Government keep us safe!!!

(CBSNews)

WASHINGTON - Keeping American weapons from getting into the hands of Mexican gangs is the goal of a program called "Project Gunrunner." But critics say it's doing exactly the opposite. CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports on what she found.

December 14, 2010. The place: a dangerous smuggling route in Arizona not far from the border. A special tactical border squad was on patrol when gunfire broke out and agent Brian Terry was killed.

Kent, Brian's brother, said "he was my only brother. That was the only brother I had. I'm lost."

The assault rifles found at the murder were traced back to a U.S. gun shop. Where they came from and how they got there is a scandal so large, some insiders say it surpasses the shoot-out at Ruby Ridge and the deadly siege at Waco.

To understand why, it helps to know something about "Project Gunrunner" an operation run by the ATF the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Read the indictment

"Project Gunrunner" deployed new teams of agents to the southwest border. The idea: to stop the flow of weapons from the US to Mexico's drug cartels. But in practice, sources tell CBS News, ATF's actions had the opposite result: they allegedly facilitated the delivery of thousands of guns into criminal hands.

CBS News wanted to ask ATF officials about the case, but they wouldn't agree to an interview. We were able to speak to six veteran ATF agents and executives involved. They don't want to be quoted by name for fear of retaliation. These are their allegations.

In late 2009, ATF was alerted to suspicious buys at seven gun shops in the Phoenix area. Suspicious because the buyers paid cash, sometimes brought in paper bags. And they purchased classic "weapons of choice" used by Mexican drug traffickers - semi-automatic versions of military type rifles and pistols.

Sources tell CBS News several gun shops wanted to stop the questionable sales, but ATF encouraged them to continue.

Jaime Avila was one of the suspicious buyers. ATF put him in its suspect database in January of 2010. For the next year, ATF watched as Avila and other suspects bought huge quantities of weapons supposedly for "personal use." They included 575 AK-47 type semi-automatic rifles.

ATF managers allegedly made a controversial decision: allow most of the weapons on the streets. The idea, they said, was to gather intelligence and see where the guns ended up. Insiders say it's a dangerous tactic called letting the guns, "walk."

One agent called the strategy "insane." Another said: "We were fully aware the guns would probably be moved across the border to drug cartels where they could be used to kill."

On the phone, one Project Gunrunner source (who didn't want to be identified) told us just how many guns flooded the black market under ATF's watchful eye. "The numbers are over 2,500 on that case by the way. That's how many guns were sold - including some 50-calibers they let walk."

50-caliber weapons are fearsome. For months, ATF agents followed 50-caliber Barrett rifles and other guns believed headed for the Mexican border, but were ordered to let them go. One distraught agent was often overheard on ATF radios begging and pleading to be allowed to intercept transports. The answer: "Negative. Stand down."

CBS News has been told at least 11 ATF agents and senior managers voiced fierce opposition to the strategy. "It got ugly..." said one. There was "screaming and yelling" says another. A third warned: "this is crazy, somebody is gonna to get killed."

Sure enough, the weapons soon began surfacing at crime scenes in Mexico - dozens of them sources say - including shootouts with government officials.

One agent argued with a superior asking, "are you prepared to go to the funeral of a federal officer killed with one of these guns?" Another said every time there was a shooting near the border, "we would all hold our breath hoping it wasn't one of 'our' guns."

Then, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered. The serial numbers on the two assault rifles found at the scene matched two rifles ATF watched Jaime Avila buy in Phoenix nearly a year before. Officials won't answer whether the bullet that killed Terry came from one of those rifles. But the nightmare had come true: "walked" guns turned up at a federal agent's murder.

"You feel like s***. You feel for the parents," one ATF veteran told us.

Hours after Agent Terry was gunned down, ATF finally arrested Avila. They've since indicted 34 suspected gunrunners in the same group. But the indictment makes no mention of Terry's murder, and no one is charged in his death.

Kent Terry said of his brother, "He'd want them to tell the truth. That's one thing my brother didn't like was a liar. And that's what he'd want. He'd want the truth.

In a letter, the Justice Department which oversees ATF says the agency has never knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to suspected gunrunners.

Original article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/23/eveningnews/main20035609.shtml

Gunrunning scandal uncovered at the ATF - CBS Evening News - CBS News
www.cbsnews.com
CBS Evening News: Gunrunning scandal uncovered at the ATF - Program aimed at stopping the flow of weapons from the US to Mexico may have allegedly had the opposite effect

on Friday · · ·

Alex Ferrier likes this.

James Pashia
yep, and these are THE people who are supposed to enforce firearm regulations and keep us safe from badguys with guns....THIS IS WHY the 2nd Amendment was included, to allow the common citizen to be able to at least have a running chance to... defend themselves from both the badguys with guns and the corrupt government agencies that are supposed to enforce the regulations to "keep us safe". So if THESE are the guys who are supposed to keep us safe, and you give up your right to bear arms, just exactly are you supposed to do the next time someone breaks into your house or threatens you and your families lives with an illegal firearm.....? or an illegal WITH a firearm...? or perhapse a FELON illegaly IN POSSESSION of a firearm....? If the BATFE cant even stop guys WITHOUT firearm convictions, what makes you think they can stop guys WITH firearm convictions(referencing Jaime Avila) Additionally, that guy needs to be charged with prividing aid/support to a terrorist organization, contributing to terrorism, etc.-what else would you call drug cartels over the border?
February 25 at 9:22am ·

James Pashia
legally buy a firearm, learn how to use it, obtain your legal CCW, carry and be responsible for your safety instead of waiting for the 911 call to hopefully summon the police (thats hoping someone actually called 911) Im not going to wait, i am going to defend myself. Contrary to popular belief, the police are responsible for the security of the CITY not the individual. If they were, they would be called body guards.
February 25 at 9:24am

Alex Ferrier
This reminds me of their war on drugs when the government is the main importer of illegal drugs.
February 25 at 9:48am · · Like 2 people

James Pashia wrote:
> Mike, while i applaud your moxie, i would ask you to
> 1) tone it down a little-. . .

That's strange. You guys are doing all the name calling and I'm supposed to tone it down? More on this at the end, below.

Karl von Busse wrote:
> Just because McVeigh illegally sold a few guns does not make him a "gun
> dealer"

Are you counting those for which he was a straw purchaser?

Karl von Busse wrote:
> So, Now you are calling me a racist nut that will kill innocents because
> I disagree with the government? You should be careful.......you are getting
> close to slander.. . .

Do you mean "libel"?

Anyone else see irony here? Name-callers are protesting the lack of "political correctness" in the responses evoked? In any event, there is a huge body of rhetoric out there, much of it on the internet, from the pro-rkba crowd that includes advocacy for executing peace officers and government officials and persons inadvertently caught in the cross fire as acceptable "collateral damage", armed insurrection, and civil war, much of it overtly racist. If you disagree with all of that, then you are to be commended and no suggestion of racism or insanity is intended. Still, what you write is evocative....;

James Pashia wrote:
> 2) a congressman's #1 responsibility is to his constituants, not his
> personal agenda....

If my personal agenda does not sufficiently match theirs, they should not vote for me. On the other hand, with me telling them up front what I believe in and support, means with me they know what they are getting, unlike the people they voted in last November who told them one thing and are busy doing something else.

Karl von Busse wrote:
> Pelosi was one of the worst speakers in history. Just a few of her "squeeky
> wheel" moments....

Ah, yes, there have been moments when Ms. Pelosi has sounded too much like Michele Bachmann and that is unfortunate. Still, the thing which made her the best to me and I would presume the worst to you was her great ability to get legislation through the house against tremendous odds, which is, after all, the job of the Speaker, except perhaps for Speaker Boehner...

He continued:
> ."......not to mention the hundreds of thousands of
> phone calls that were received on capitol hill in opposition the the
> "healthcare bill" which she helped ram though against the will of the
> people."

You mean the "will of a lot of the people"?

Currently the only way you can find a majority opposing the health care bill is to include people like me who oppose it because it doesn't go far enough. I would have voted for it, but I would have had to hold my nose while doing so. 2000 pages of giveaways to insurance companies? Gack! I would have preferred the one page version at http://www.mjbarkl.com/health.htm - at least that would have passed Constitutional muster while solving the many problems the other tried to solve but didn't.

Tony Seibel wrote:
> . . .but you are sounding a lot like Stalin. you know you are waaaaaay
> in left field when you think pelosi is conservative.

Do you regard Stalin as left wing or right wing? There's a lot of stuff on the net discussing just what is conservative or liberal, reactionary or radical, see for instance http://105.wikispaces.com/file/view/PoliticalSpectrumReadin.pdf and especially comments therein on whether or not the spectrum is a "line" or a "circle" . I've long been puzzled at why Stalin was regarded as left-wing and Hitler right-wing. To me, I've long felt that extreme right wing involved using force to preserve the status quo and dictatorial control over the populace. In the case of Hitler and Stalin, both killed millions of their own people to maintain an iron fist of power, and if you ignore what they said and concentrate on what they did they come out looking fairly identical: self-dealing despots preserving tight-fisted control over their countries through fear and murder. In its application, communism always seemed to be a lie put over on the people by dictators, so the liberal side of the line or circle, if you ignore their rhetoric and look at what he did, never includes rulers like Stalin. Yes Ms. Pelosi seems too conservative to me because she went after what Democratic goals were possible and ignored the more difficult ones - a very practical Speaker, but mostly middle of the road on what she attempted.

As I see it, on that conservative-liberal line:

Democrats: How can I help you?
Republicans: I've got mine.

Democrats: generous.
Republicans: selfish.

Democrats: Legislation and power to help people.
Republicans: Legislation and power to protect and line their pockets.

What's worse, the core of these two parties seem to be hard-wired in their thinking. Only rarely do Republicans with compassion or Democrats with an appreciation for Capitalism step forth and when they do, both sides are puzzled because it's so unexpected and the world suspects they're lying anyway. . . . The mindsets are so alien to each other, any understanding goes out the window.

Anyway, if you are a working person and you vote Republican, you're voting for the boot on your neck. The people you vote for are laughing all the way to the bank while you wonder why you can't get an education or a job.

Which brings me back to the purpose of this group. You think I'm way out in left field and my words are so alien to you that no understanding of them is possible. I see that. It's a hard-wired difference.

On the other hand, in this forum and most other places on the net, what I hear is a bunch of guys who think their guns are more important than the life of a 9-year old girl in Tucson. Neither of us will ever convince the other, but that's not what this group is about. You are not my target audience, the vast moderate middle of the spectrum is.

Two decades ago there was only Usenet to provide forums like this one, with "rec.guns" and "alt.guns" existing to satisfy your need to rub elbows with like-minded pro-gun enthusiasts. People like me were barely tolerated and usually attacked. The internet went from Newsgroups, to Blogs, to Facebook. With Usenet you needed someone's permission to start a group. With Blogs you could start one but most were and are autocratically controlled as to content and direction. Facebook seems to allow open and unfettered group creation. I link some 13 Facebook groups on my web site http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm apparently advocating doing away with the Second Amendment (I think that is all of them). I don't recall ever seeing such an opportunity for people to get together before now on this issue as Facebook offers. While I believe I am Kenneth's guest in this forum which is better than creating my own, he has allowed unfettered postings on both sides of this issue, but make no mistake, of the 13 groups, 12 were either stillborn or rapidly infected by pro-gun forces spewing the type of venom you folks specialize in to the point that normal people with any regard for manners and civilized behavior quickly exit. That leaves this group. The only forum anywhere of which I am aware that is discussing these issues is this one and that is because, as long as Kenneth will have me, I have not left it even in the face of your usual nasty rhetoric.

So when you tell me to tone it down while continuing with your usual nastiness, I appreciate the irony. It does not need to be toned down, it needs to be intensified so that you will continue to reveal your true natures. Our country needs fewer guns.

James Pashia wrote:
> .......something to remember, is that noone is bullet proof.....

Go Ahead, Make My Day.

Best wishes, --Mike , http://www.mjbarkl.com/
Mike Barkley, Candidate for Congress
www.mjbarkl.com
last Tuesday · · ·

Karl von Busse
so you are a long winded talking head but a talking head nontheless. That siad you have a snowballs chance in hell of accomplishing anything on your page so I, for one, and unconcerned with your ramblings. BTW.....name calling is generally the purview of the liberal, not the conservative. I just decided to stoop to your level in the hopes you would understand......in this I failed.
February 22 at 7:57pm ·

Tony Seibel
"Do you regard Stalin as left wing or right wing?" -i regard him as neither and the same goes for hitler, and you. you are tyrants. you grab power claiming you think you know what is best for the people when all you do is sit on facebook and bitch about the other political persuasion. i am neither liberal or conservative. i am a libertarian. oh BTW, the dems have been lining their pockets much more than the repubs. thanks to them the govt needs more money to "avoid a government shutdown" maybe what we need is a complete purge of government, just rid of all of them and start over. both parties suck, and are betraying the interests of their voters.
February 22 at 8:00pm ·

Tony Seibel
"On the other hand, in this forum and most other places on the net, what I hear is a bunch of guys who think their guns are more important than the life of a 9-year old girl in Tucson." Liberty always trumps safety, cowards like you passing a law would not have stopped the shooting in the first place
February 22 at 8:02pm · · Like 1 person

Tony Seibel
and quit spewing democrat party rhetoric, you're more pathetic than the republicans
February 22 at 8:04pm ·

Tony Seibel
by the way, stalin used the same fear of "deaths of the children" used to guilt the soviets into giving up their guns, then next thing you know, WORK CAMPS AND GENOCIDE. i empathize with the little girl and her family, but NO ONE LIFE, not even that of an innocent child, is worth stripping the rights of an entire nation. countries with outright gun bans killed more than a nutjob with a glock 19 and a 33 round mag ever will
February 22 at 8:08pm ·

Karl von Busse
wow! You pissed off Tony! Thats tough to do. He is usually so laid back......
February 22 at 8:08pm · · Like 2 people

Tony Seibel
believe me, only one thing pisses me off, and its elitist bastards who sit in their fancy leather chairs in the safety of their offices, telling ME a middle class citizen, that i have no right to defend myself. they live in a false reality, they have not lived these experiences, they simply exploit them, insulting the death of a NINE YEAR OLD GIRL to further their tyrannical agenda................ well that, and people going all super religious gay-hater on me. especially the jerks in my town.
February 22 at 8:12pm · · Like 1 person

Tony Seibel
and until your next post supreme chancellor Michael Barkley, i bid you a SIEG HEIL! elitist asshole
February 22 at 8:13pm ·

Karl von Busse
just as an example of what we are talking about lets take the current situation in Wisconsin:
February 22 at 8:43pm ·

Karl von Busse
The left-wing protesters in Wisconsin have insisted they are only calling in sick for work, getting paid for protesting, and demanding excessively generous benefits for “the children.” To drive this point home, they have surrounded themselves with children in the protests. Many of these young people say they feel “forced” to attend and admit they have no idea why they are there. There is a simple reason for this: The Left has long used children as political props for its radical political agenda. No one who really cared about children would want to expose them to the hate-filled profanity-fests that represent the average liberal rally.
The Left uses children as their political soldiers because children do not know the platitudes they are mouthing are nonsense; they are more sympathetic than union thugs; and they give the Left a sense of innocence and moral legitimacy entirely unmerited by their ideology, means, or goals.
Marion Wright Edelman, who founded the Children’s Defense Fund and acted as Hillary Clinton’s mentor for years, admitted, "I got the idea that children might be a very effective way to broaden the base for change."
February 22 at 8:43pm · · Like 2 people

Kyle Franceschini
Honestly at this points your arguing points we have already destroyed, I think now you just think we are idiotic and can't take an overflow of words. And at that your also failing. Micheal, your going to destroy your reputation if you fail to get rid of the second amendment and you probably won't get it done. My recommendation, give more funds to police so they can crack down on illegal gun trade, instead of getting rid of a normal law abiding citizens right of owning a gun.
February 23 at 3:53am ·

Michael Carrigee
You can't say ANYTHING about the pro-rkba crowd when you are arguing with 2 peace officers.
February 23 at 5:59am · · Like 2 people

Alex Ferrier
I think I hit the nail on the head with my last reply. Also I cant believe your bringing republican vs democrat into this it is completely childish. To me the only thing that defines my decision any issue is this, freedom vs tyranny. You Michael are on the side of the tyrant no matter how much education you receive for corporate funding you accept I believe that in the end your type will fail for the simple reason that you are fundamentally wrong, and you are an enemy to all humanity. The idea of you succeeding disgusts me to my very core. And I will spend the rest of my life doing anything and everything I can to stop globalist filth like you.
February 23 at 11:04am ·

Alex Ferrier
to clarify Im referring to Michael Barkley
February 23 at 12:15pm ·

James Pashia
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH....ILL HUFF AND PUFF AND BLOW YOUR CONSTITUTIONALY PROTECTED away, oop, this is what the SUPREME COURT SAYS: "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."
February 23 at 1:40pm · · Like 3 people

Jay Smith
^That needs to be posted on EVERY Gun Control website that there is. Even though people will not listen to it at first, they might realize how dumb their thinking is.
February 23 at 1:50pm · · Like 2 people

Karl von Busse
Michael is not going to care what the SCOTUS says on the issue. His ilk never does as they assume that they know better.
February 23 at 1:59pm ·

Kyle Franceschini
Hmmm looks like I was right, he is just trying to drown us in words now.
February 23 at 2:03pm · · Like 1 person

James Pashia
Lol, he said "make my day" about my comment about noone being bullet proof, so he has run out of democratic slogans to spew that I have him referencing Clint Eastwood attributes. I'm done with this wonderful attention hungry democrat example. As is typical, the gun control left love looking at how wonderful gun control looks on paper, but don't take into account the unpredictable nature of Human Nature, and NO voluntary compliance statute will make everyone obey them, and as such citizens HAVE to have the right to defend themselves in a free society, otherwise it becomes a bully state of both the government over it's citizens and the strong over the weak. Lets start ignoring this guy because he is obviously both spewing rhetoric and intentionally baiting us, attempting to get us to do something illegal. Ignore him and he and his nonsense ideals will fall by the wayside, as they only gain power by attention.
February 23 at 8:10pm · · Like 1 person

Tony Seibel
ignoring the problem only enables its growth. The Democratic Government set up in Germany after World War 1 tried to ignore hitler, and that ultimately was their downfall
February 23 at 8:13pm · · Like 1 person

Tony Seibel
^ well, they ignored him until it was too late that is......
February 23 at 8:13pm · ...

Ha you all gotta check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-UCODPYM2M&feature=watch_response

Gun Owners are Law Breakers.Take their Guns! NOW!
www.youtube.com
Confiscate is Legal seizure without compensation by a government

last Wednesday · · ·

Jay Smith
Ugh,
February 23 at 11:40am ·

Alex Ferrier
did u watch it its a parady
February 23 at 12:07pm ·

Jay Smith
Oh no! I thought it was simply a stupid video. I will watch it now.
February 23 at 12:07pm ·

Alex Ferrier
LOLZ don't be so judge mental don't you see my other comments on here I would never post a serious video like this.
February 23 at 12:08pm ·

Jay Smith
Yeah I saw one post, but it was somewhat confusing, I thought you were talking to the Michael who is against Gun Control. But you were actually talking to the stupid Michael.
February 23 at 12:10pm ·

Alex Ferrier
Oh no those were all directed at Michael Barkley.
February 23 at 12:14pm ·

Jay Smith
Yeah, I figured that out.
February 23 at 12:16pm · · Like 1 person

Karl von Busse wrote:
> I just found his platform page. He is another of Pelosi's talking heads.
> Even if he gets to Congress he will be ignored. http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm

Clever lad. I'd been posting that URL on this page from the beginning and you "just found" it.

Speaker Pelosi was one of history's greatest Speakers of the House, She ran the House like a Swiss watch, not like that current somewhat incompetent, Speaker Boehner. Still, Ms. Pelosi is a bit conservative for my taste. For one thing, she's afraid of you since there doesn't seem to be all that much difference between your writings and the writings of McVeigh or the video commentary of Loughner. We need Congressmen who will stand up to the pro-RKBA crowd. . . .

Karl von Busse wrote:
> He doesnt even have a district to run in!!! BWAHAHAHAHA! "Running depends
> on the results of redistricting due 08/15/2011 "

Actually, my district is represented by a Congressman I rather like. I walked precincts for him and would rather run against a Tea Party Republican. So we'll see how the re-districting works out. It's due from the Commission 08/15/2011.

Best wishes, --Mike , http://www.mjbarkl.com/
Mike Barkley, Candidate for Congress
www.mjbarkl.com

about a week ago · · ·

James Pashia
Mike, while i applaud your moxie, i would ask you to
1) tone it down a little- the squeeky wheel doesnt always get the grease and
2) a congressman's #1 responsibility is to his constituants, not his personal agenda.
While i get a giggle out... of your actions and "that should rattle thier cage" posts and statements, you do indeed paint quite the proverbial target upon yourself. When you invoke the ire of that many people, you create a hurdle that you will unneccessarily have to cross, and often times committing yourself to making liaisons with those you would rather not that cause your inevitable downfall. Run for congress, i applaud you for doing so, were i not engaged in defending the rights of people to make complete and utter fools of themselves, i might run as well. but then again, i like being able to live by both my wits and values and not have them muddied or called into question by others less inclined to be as noble. instead of being a force to be annoyed by and fought against by others, why dont you direct your engergies into being a POSITIVE FORCE in the political world, ` because honestly this repeal of the 2nd Amendment deal.......its been done before babe, and by better people than you. Fix the medical side of the house, stop giving our money to foreign countries that dont toe the line, FIX medicare, medicade, tricare and welfare, get us out of debt and leave the safety of the masses to law enforcement and those of us who know what we are doing. Nothing stymies progress than someone who is clueless trying to get in on making themselves look good for a sound byte. Leave the pulling of triggers to those of us with the intestinal fortitude to do so, you go work on getting the paperwork signed so we can stay Americans, instead of "This is America brought to you by China"... or i will start calling you SNOWBALL or NAPOLEAN.......something to remember, is that noone is bullet proof.....not even Hitler.....
February 19 at 7:56pm ·

Karl von Busse
Pelosi was one of the worst speakers in history. Just a few of her "squeeky wheel" moments. "We have to pass the bill to find out whats in it"...."I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels," she says. Natural gas "is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels," (Natural gas IS a fossil fuel)...."Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."....."Every week we don't pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.''......"We have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as "Americans." (Okay...just so's we po' folk have this straight...illegal aliens are "Americans"?)....."First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class."......not to mention the hundreds of thousands of phone calls that were received on capitol hill in opposition the the "healthcare bill" which she helped ram though against the will of the people. Since she is your hero why should the people think you will do anything other than ignore their will as well?
February 19 at 8:06pm · · Like 1 person

Karl von Busse
So, Now you are calling me a racist nut that will kill innocents because I disagree with the government? You should be careful.......you are getting close to slander. I would have expected someone with an education to be smarter. For the record I cheered when McVeigh got the death penalty....he deserved it. I also will applaud when you lose your bid for Congress. The only thing Pelosi (and you for that matter) should fear from me is my voice screaming in opposition to your anti-American idiocy yet I would defend your right to say it as an exercise of your free speech.....want to repeal that one too?
February 19 at 8:10pm · · Like 2 people

Tony Seibel you say we sound like McVeigh, but you are sounding a lot like Stalin. you know you are waaaaaay in left field when you think pelosi is conservative.
February 19 at 8:18pm ·

James Pashia
lol, oh i love his "clever lad" statement, almost makes him sound educated.........INDEED.........whatever, he is a squirrel trying to get a nut and the nut is "power" so that he can feel important and think he can control people. Ah let him be........he is so far left that you would have to move a wall to let him get further left and NOONE now days (particularly the schmart peoples who voted for change) will be suckered in by someone that far left. Let him be, he will fizzle out with those before him with the same agenda.........ive seen it happen too many times before. :)
February 19 at 8:42pm ·

James Pashia
LOL, oh and another thought hit me, he must think he is ALL THAT that we would waste our time scouring the web looking for pages about him.....little self important i think.....lol, that is hillarous. Just remember Cant Fix Stupid.....and SOMEONE has to win the Darwin Award........might as well be someone stupid......
February 19 at 8:45pm ·

Alex Ferrier
Michael Barkley Do you seriously have the political beliefs that you spew out. its completely incomprehensible to me that someone could hate the common human being that much.I never understood people who hate individual rites. It goes again...st everything that's good. I don't even wanna argue with you because it will be like trying to reason with a zombie.You obviously are a globalist you have made that quite clear. I just am surprised every time that I come across proof of people like you that exist. I think your the type that gets off on controlling other people and forcing them to do your will. That is the only way I can explain to myself how that you can actually believe what you say.
February 19 at 9:22pm · ...

Karl von Busse wrote:
> ...McVeigh was not a gun dealer. He did not have an FFL ....

Ah, I get it. A person is not a drug dealer unless he is a licensed pharmacist.

Best wishes, --Mike

about a week ago · · ·

Michael Carrigee
The point is that he was not a legally licensed ffl holder. Therefore, the legal ffl holders are not to blame for his actions.
February 18 at 5:44am ·

Tony Seibel
he never even sold guns, he collected them for the monetary value and recreational shooting, he also viewed gun ownership as a symbol of liberty
February 18 at 7:08am ·

Karl von Busse
That is the most pathetic attempt at deflection I have ever seen. Let me show you your errors. Drug dealers sell ILLEGAL narcotics (although I understand that its a blurred line in California) a pharmacist sells drugs as prescribed by a physician. A gun dealer, as described by federal code, deals in firearms. He MUST have a FFL and keep immaculate records. Just because McVeigh illegally sold a few guns does not make him a "gun dealer" it makes him a criminal. Oh and here is one more news flash for you. He was punished for his crimes. I really hope the people in your district fail to elect you.......you are really dumb.
February 18 at 7:01pm ·

Tony Seibel
remember: Dumb criminals go to jail, smart ones become politicians
February 18 at 7:03pm ·

Karl von Busse
I just found his platform page. He is another of Pelosi's talking heads. Even if he gets to Congress he will be ignored. http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm
February 18 at 7:08pm · · Like 1 person

Tony Seibel
ah i see, another puppet subscribing to complete fallacies? you should fit right in Congress
February 18 at 7:09pm ·

Karl von Busse
WAIT FOR IT!!!! He doesnt even have a district to run in!!! BWAHAHAHAHA! "Running depends on the results of redistricting due 08/15/2011 "
February 18 at 7:09pm · · Like 1 person

Tony Seibel
damned republicans taking my districts! they're racists! racists i tell you!
February 18 at 7:10pm ·

Tony Seibel
and i love how he uses Tim McVeigh as a tool for his debate. OOOooooooh fear being used to support my beliefs, sooooo original
February 18 at 7:14pm ·

Karl von Busse
Yet he doesnt mention that the ATF KNEW McVeigh was illegally selling guns and was dangerous and chose to do nothing.
February 18 at 7:15pm ·

Tony Seibel
isnt it legal to occasionally sell firearms to reduce your collection?
February 18 at 7:16pm ·

Tony Seibel
without an FFL?
February 18 at 7:16pm ·

Jay Smith
Yes, it is legal to do so. Called a private sale. In NC you have to have an FFL to transfer a pistol from one person to another.
February 18 at 7:18pm ·

Tony Seibel
me and my dad sold two rifles in a private sale to one of the guys at a gun show who sells metal signs and metal art, is there anything wrong with that? nope, we legitimately sold two bolt action rifles to a guy we knew for a long time, several years. he actually builds his own AK's. very nice fellow
February 18 at 7:20pm · · Like 2 people

Jay Smith
Yep. I think that as long as you know the person, and know they have a good reason to buy it and all that good stuff I see nothing wrong with it.
February 18 at 7:22pm ·

Tony Seibel
its really funny how you never hear about a gun show being shot up by a psycho.
February 18 at 7:23pm · · Like 2 people

Jay Smith
Whenever we go to one they ALWAYS ask us if we have any guns, and we never have any concealed, so we just say "We have knives, but that's it." and the cop says "I'll let ya have those, too many guns." That's why no one shoots up a gun show. Way too many people that have guns there and of course TONS of ammo so... Yeah.
February 18 at 7:32pm ·

Tony Seibel
i wouldnt say that, since they took your guns at the door. i would say it is common sense, you try and shoot up a gun show, you get shot at the door
February 18 at 7:33pm ·

Tony Seibel
*would have took
February 18 at 7:33pm ·

Jay Smith
Now if you have guns they don't take them, they just zip tie the bolts back so you can't load anything into it. And I'm not sure if you're allowed to carry a pistol in (I think that's only for vendors), but rifles you can and they just zip tie the bolt.
February 18 at 7:35pm ·

Tony Seibel
in pennsylvania they dont do that. they just let you carry it in loaded. but in NY thats a different story........
February 19 at 6:41am ·

James Pashia
Does making having a shovel make you a farmer........perhaps if you can do math makes you a physicist? Ah perhaps being able to write makes you a novelist and the ability to wipe your own ass makes you a Sanitation Disposal Specialist.................? Blah Blah blah......we're gonna repeal, blah blah blah...........isnt going to happen, because there is tooooooooooooo much force behind the 2nd Amendment flourishing. Like they say in Britain, Gun control sounded good until we realized that the police cant stop all the crime and break ins have to be reported for us to be able to respond to them. The police cant stop all crime.........that aught to tell you something in a country where firearms are strictly regulated. How about China......all those gun laws keeping guns out of peoples hands made China safe until people started going on stabbing sprees in schools......yep, gun laws worked to keep everyone safe.....Glad i can go to that dead kids parents house and tell them that man, sorry your kid is dead, but at least he wasnt shot.............Anything Illegal can be aquired by those that wish to flaunt the law, those that abide by it are constantly at a disadvantage.......
February 19 at 8:07pm · · Like 1 person

Karl von Busse likes this.

All,......why are we continuing to argue with Mike B....? Its a futile waste of time, gives him something to giggle about (girls giggle) around the watercooler with his cronies and acomplishes nothing for us than to vent our frustrations against someone who is intentionally provoking us gun lovers. If we continue, his Squeeky wheel will get the grease, lets let him alone and let him fade into the background like losers before him. Thanks, This is Jim Pashia, Vote for me this November. Jim Pashia for Congress- I'll tell you the truth to the point you will hate yourself. (paid for by the commity to not vote Jim Pashia into office) My QUOTE OF THE DAY "Do what you want with you and yours, leave me and mine alone!"
about a week ago · · ·

Supreme Court to re-examine Obama's Eligibility.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264897

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case look
www.wnd.com
In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another conference on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Ob about a week ago · · ·

Alex Ferrier likes this.

Look at how terrible their life is due to anti gun agenda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec&feature=related

England Gun Ban Update
www.youtube.com
England Gun Ban Update

about a week ago · · ·

Karl von Busse likes this.

Anti gun senator shoots intruder! State Senator R.C. Soles (D - NC) Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City , N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said.
The intruder, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen andBrunswick counties.. The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested,declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.
"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone. "I'm right in the middle of an investigation."
The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.
In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the "Do as i say and not as i do" Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.
It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine.
But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.
about a week ago · · ·
3 people like this.

James Pashia Ah how the mighty have fallen......
February 15 at 7:20pm ·

Karl von Busse
The rules dont apply to the "rulers" dont you know? Didnt appy to Hitler, didnt apply to Stalin, didnt apply to Mao and apparently dont apply to this guy either.
February 15 at 7:22pm ·

James Pashia
lol, when he comes up for reelection i bet his position has seriously changed and will be neutral on the firearm issue so as to not embarrass himself further
February 15 at 7:23pm ·

Karl von Busse
remember Rosie O'Donnell's anti-gun rant? We found out later about her 6 body ARMED bodyguards.......
February 15 at 7:25pm ·

Kenneth Kawano
I disagree with your assessment of the senator. As a public official, he falls within the spectrum of persons whom I would favor being allowed to arm themselves. The issue is not whether his life is "more valuable" than anyone else's, but whether he has cause to believe that there is a continuous threat to his personal safety as a consequence of his public service.
February 16 at 9:24am ·

Kenneth Kawano
Also, Rosie O'Donnell has clearly hired professional armed guards. These are also persons whom I would favor allowing to bear arms. Essentially, my view is that guns belong in the hands of trained and disciplined professional, not average citizens, who are proving time and again, whether with guns, cars or cell phones (and cars) that they are quite apt to act foolishly or at the least inattentively, given the chance.
February 16 at 9:27am ·

Kenneth Kawano
You have in fact invoked one of the classic fallacies of informal arguments, the "tu quoque" fallacy, which posits that, simply because someone acts in a manner that is inconsistent with the views they espouse, therefore the view itself is ...not valid. This is illogical. Additionally, by invoking Rosie O'Donnell to further buttress your views, you have also invoked the "argumentum ad hominem," i.e., by casting the person in a negative light, you also attempt to cast their argument poorly as well. A person who does something that you do not like may still offer sound advice (hypocrisy is a non-issue in such a case, though obviously one might want to examine such a view more closely).
February 16 at 9:32am ·

Alex Ferrier
I cant afford personal bodyguards. SO do you only support the protection of rich people. (of course you don't) But that is certainty what it looks like. One bodyguard per day is probably over 500 bucks for around 350 I bought an AK to defend myself for a lifetime.
February 16 at 10:50am · · Like 2 people

Karl von Busse
@Kenneth: What you are missing is the constant examples of "the rules and beliefs we want YOU to live by do not apply to us" attitude of many on the left. Some of the most recent examples (aside from those cited above) are the "Obamacare" ...bill that specifically exempts Congress......Barney Franks recent tax fraud......and I could go on Ad nauseam. The 2nd was specifically put in place to protect "we the people" from the gradual takeover of tyranny. The 2nd protects free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble etc. the 2nd gives us one last avenue to protects ourselves from those that would plunge us into darkness. Now, I am not advocating violent overthrow of the government. I am however making the statement that when ALL other avenues fail, the free men and women of this great land have a means to protect ourselves from any tyrant that would attempt to take over. I was born a free man and I will die a free man.
February 16 at 11:53am ·

Michael Carrigee
The Second Amendment is to protect ourselves from people that think officials should have more rights than the CITIZENS of America.
February 16 at 5:35pm · ...

Karl von Busse continued:
> Go ahead and try your nanny state ploy....

As if there is no nanny state? Following is a list of the California Codes, by way of example.

Business and Professions Code
Civil Code
Code of Civil Procedure
Commercial Code
Corporations Code
Education Code
Elections Code
Evidence Code
Family Code
Financial Code
Fish and Game Code
Food and Agricultural Code
Government Code
Harbors and Navigation Code
Health and Safety Code
Insurance Code
Labor Code
Military and Veterans Code
Penal Code
Probate Code
Public Contract Code
Public Resources Code
Public Utilities Code
Revenue and Taxation Code
Streets and Highways Code
Unemployment Insurance Code
Vehicle Code
Water Code
Welfare and Institutions Code

Very little of our social interaction in this country is not subject to some law or other. As for RKBA, true, in 2010 full adoption of a resolution such as I offered is indeed not possible: our legislators have not yet learned their lesson and they are afraid of you. In 2099, after another century of Columbine or VT or Tucson mass killings, maybe not so impossible. I am approaching the end of my life so threats don't bother me all that much. Still, with the loss of people like Christina Taylor Green (would she have been a future president?) or Judge Roll in Tucson, I am prepared to extend Representative Major R. Owens' efforts to the next step so that when this country finally decides it has had enough of the Timothy McVeigh wannabes (he was a gun dealer, he used a bomb but his underlying "cause" was RKBA, and his writings were little different from much of what I read now on the internet by RKBA enthusiasts), the structure is in place to move towards a more peaceful civilization. http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm

Best wishes, --Mike
Mike Barkley, Candidate for Congress
www.mjbarkl.com
about 2 weeks ago · · ·

Karl von Busse
Sorry...you are wrong. It is twisted beliefs like yours that have turned one of the most beautiful states in this country into a bankrupted waste. California has draconian gun control yet still has one of the highest crime rates in the US. ...You over regulate EVERYTHING. Look where it got you. Cant even pay for your welfare state that YOU set up. McVeigh was not a gun dealer. He did not have an FFL but I would not expect a pesky little thing like the truth to mean anything to you at all. Lets talk hard numbers: Cali has the highest amount of firearms regulation anywhere in this country yet according to the California Law Enforcement Agency Uniform Crime Reports your 2009 crime rates can be found here: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm these are some of the highest in the country......good job! The beliefs that you are trying to force on the rest of us created a huge number of victims. Ill tell you what....Ill bet you a years salary that you can not get enough state legislatures to even consider repealing the 2nd to get a Constitutional convention called. Thank God Californians, for the most part stay in California and leave the rest of us alone. I live in Ohio, I own guns and I am unfettered because of GOOD laws like CCW and a castle doctrine that ensure that I am not a victim.....you can keep your nanny state.
February 15 at 6:13pm · · Like 2 people
You [error] and Alex Ferrier like this.

James Pashia
Kalifornia gun laws are so draconian, BARRETT wont even service the Police Barrett rifles owned by the departments because of the stupid laws on the .50BMG. THAT is funny that the police departments have weapons they cant get serviced by the manufacturer because of the states firearm regulations. Also, can someone explain tome how a curled finger grip is less deadly than a pistol grip? when will that state fall into the ocean and INSTANTLY increase the national IQ
February 15 at 7:27pm · · Like 1 person

Tony Seibel
WOW how stupid is the OP?
February 16 at 7:10am ·

Tony Seibel
McVeigh WAS NOT a gun dealer, he just attended gun shows, and he gave out free copies of the Turner Diaries
February 16 at 7:10am ·

Tony Seibel
Research is a fine thing. OP. DO IT
February 16 at 7:11am ·

Kenneth Kawano
How absurd. You could not point to a single item on that list that does not cover an area vitally in need of regulations and standards. No doubt you would also prefer that local governments mint their own currency as well.
February 16 at 2:14pm ·

Michael Carrigee
Actually considering how billions of dollars are being printed out of thin air by the treasury without it being backed by anything, having actual money backed by gold and silver would not be a bad thing. Stop living in your own fantasy world, keep it real.
February 16 at 3:49pm · · Like 1 person

Karl von Busse
Absolutely I can. Millions do NOT need to be spent on education alone. Example? New York state spent the most on education (K-12) last year in this country. Louisiana spent the least yet they have the same graduation rates. They have the same rate of students that go on to college (these are per capita percentages of course) The only thing that throwing more money at a problem accomplishes is making a problem more EXPENSIVE. The probate code is unnecessary. It causes heartache that doubles the pain over the loss of a loved one and ensure only that the state get its "share." Ever deal with the VA? I have and believe me. I never will again. Your statement about currency does not even deserve an answer. Its absurdity stands all on its own and is obviously designed to prove that you are smarter than we are. The only thing it proves is that you are way off
February 16 at 5:26pm · ...

Police: Suspect in custody in murder of 2 young children in Georgia
www.cnn.com
A suspect is in custody in the murder of two young siblings during an attack at a home in Atlanta's northern suburbs, Gwinnett County Police spokesman Jake Smith said Thursday.

about 2 weeks ago · · ·

these people too....

Family stuffed in tree: surveillance, bone chilling confession released
nancygrace.blogs.cnn.com
Breaking - A man who killed two women and a boy, then put their dismembered bodies in a hollowed out tree confesses and divulges his motive! Nancy Grace has the latest, 8 p.m. ET on HLN.

about 2 weeks ago · · ·

yep, more gun laws would have saved these people.....

Young couple found dead: hands bound w/duct tape, plastic bags over heads
nancygrace.blogs.cnn.com
Breaking News -- a father makes a gruesome discovery -- finding his son & his son's girlfriend dead on the floor, their hands bound with duct tape & plastic bags over their heads. Who murdered Johnny Clarke & Lisa Straub? Nancy Grace investigates every night.

about 2 weeks ago · · ·

Ah the free exchange of thought..............
about 2 weeks ago · · ·

Karl von Busse wrote:
> So....Mr Barkley....you believe that our RIGHTS are nothing more than
> privileges? Who, in your opinion, grants us those privileges? You? The
> Government? A little pink bunny? Here is a lesson in Constitutional law.
> The Federal government is supposed to derive its power from the States. . . .

Class? Class? Listen up.

First, the right is repealed (ratified by legislatures of 3/4 of the several states), which leaves only

a privilege, for which

Congress passes laws to administer uniformly across the land
- - -
Best wishes, --Mike

about 2 weeks ago · · ·

Karl von Busse
best of luck to you. Pay attention to the map I posted. WAY more than 3/4 of the state legislatures have passed CCW laws, castle doctrines etc. Know what that means? Less gun control not more. Now YOU listen up. People like you really dust ...me up. You think because you believe in something you have the right to shove it down EVERYONES throats. Well sir.....here is a shock for you......you dont. BTW......Gun rights are a STATE issue....not a Federal one. The fact that we have the right to keep and bear arms is here to stay. It was put in place to guarantee that a big government buffoons that believe that we the people need a baby sitter never get the chance to become the king that you want to be. Go ahead and try your nanny state ploy....I can promise you 2 things: 1. It will fail miserably. 2. You would be voted out next election cycle.
February 14 at 8:25pm ·

Karl von Busse
BTW your little "Class? Class? Listen up." shows you to be a typical money grubbing, anti freedom, knee jerk, whiney liberal that does everything based on his small minded belief that if it "feels good" then it must be the right thing to do. Know what the difference between us is? If I dont like something I choose not to participate. If you dont like something you attempt to ban it for everyone. Hows that for a Class?
February 14 at 8:28pm · ...

James Pashia wrote:
> planning on having a mutiny against the Supreme Court? Or perhaps you
> are one of those wonderfully bright people that thinks the Law doesnt
> apply to them?

Following draft is pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, format is from H.J.RES. 438, 102nd Congress::
- - - -

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the right to keep and bear arms.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid for all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States at any time after the date of its submission for ratification:

"Article--

1. Any right to keep and bear arms, whether under the Second Amendment to this Constitution, or under some pre-existing doctrine of natural law or common law or otherwise, or under Constitution or laws of any State, is repealed.

2. The privilege to keep and bear arms throughout the United States shall be under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

- - - -
That ought to do it. Best wishes, --Mike

about 2 weeks ago · · ·

Michael Carrigee
Who are you to think that this is a privilege? who are you to think that the government should decide what is best for us, as if we are their subjects?
February 14 at 3:25pm · · Like 1 person

Michael Carrigee
I would like add I'm for a constitutional government and am NOT anti-government or subversive in any way, shape, or form. So don't try to accuse me of that.
February 14 at 3:32pm · · Like 1 person

James Pashia
Dear Mike B, have fun with that and enjoy blowing your money on that campaign and wasting your time pursuing that. They have been trying to repeal the 2nd amendment for the longest time, if they couldnt do it with the Assault Weapon ban of ...1994, that had a sunset clause, which was the ONLY way it could get passed in the first place, and with the number of states adopting CCW laws, and allowing the people to carry CCW, crime has gone down. Go ahead and waste your money. just remember if you by some act of god get it passed and come knock on my door to get mine, hope your guys are wearing body armor, because some of us DO have AP rounds :) The next question will be, how many of yours are you willing to lose to get me, cause i aint going out alone :) And if it DID get passed, do you actually think you will get them all? Half the ones i have were through private sale, have fun tracing what people DO have and what you can PROVE they have. How many cops do you know who will traipse across the city, knocking on doors to get firearms, there ARENT enough SWAT cops in the city. By the way, when the word gets out that they are confiscating guns, who do plan on hiring to watch the backs of the SWAT cops as they go to knock on another door? Also, many of them have firearms themselves. Besides when the flag goes up, mine get vaccum sealed with dessicant and will be deposited in different locations through out the countryside. Have fun finding them. Oh, by the way the .50BMG round will penetrate over an inch of steel at over 100 yards, do you plan on knocking on peoples doors with ROBOCOP or ED209? You can engage targets at over 2400 yards, the minute you make it a police state to confiscate firearms, the police will be the first gone. Additionally CONGRESS would have to grant the president the powers to invoke Martial Law and the minute that happened, it would be ON. so as you can see, while you may make it sound as simple as filing a piece of paper.....the question would then be, when people realizeo YOU were the one who filed it and fostered its passage, exactly how long do you plan on breathing? People are going to view you as responsible and having a COUNTRY want to get you, kind of worries me a little. are you going to visit Dick in the "undisclosed location" to hide out? Repeal of the 2nd Amendment wont happen. But you guys that think its that simple, crack me up, so keep it up, makes me laugh all the way to the bank for the sales i make by your scaremongering. :) Thanks for the duckets! (Ah SARCASM, its so much fun)
February 14 at 3:51pm · · Like 1 person

Karl von Busse
So....Mr Barkley....you believe that our RIGHTS are nothing more than privileges? Who, in your opinion, grants us those privileges? You? The Government? A little pink bunny? Here is a lesson in Constitutional law. The Federal government is ...supposed to derive its power from the States. The States in turn derive their power from the PEOPLE. Now I know that politicians as of late have forgotten the people that sent them to Washington in the first place hence the "gentle" reminder that we, the people issued to DC this last election. Just in case you are too thick to have heard us let me make it plain for you. HANDS OFF OUR RIGHTS. We didnt want Obamacare, it was pushed through anyway and the vast majority of those pushing got pushed back.....right out of DC. Go ahead and push your own agenda.....you can even call it the "will of the people" if you like, but here is a warning: If you attempt to trod on our RIGHTS, not privileges, again sir...you will also be voted out of office. Please remember that.
February 14 at 7:55pm · · Like 1 person

Karl von Busse The last thing he forgot is that it takes MUCH more than a simple majority to Amend the Constitution. Doesnt matter what he wants. The people must agree....good luck with that.
February 14 at 7:58pm · · Like 1 person

[photo of person with assault rifle in a shower....]
ok, this is tongue in cheek, but is also funny.
about 2 weeks ago · · ·2 people like this.

Michael Carrigee
Never know where a battle rifle will come in handy.
February 14 at 3:36pm ·

Kyle Franceschini
Note the trigger discipline
February 14 at 3:48pm · · Like 1 person

[photo of massive amount of personal armament]
about 2 weeks ago · · ·

Alex Ferrier
Lol I only got 4 30 round Mags in Ohio anything over 32 rounds is banned without some special permit. I owned 2 40 round mags because I didn't know about the law so I traded them for 30 round mags.What type of mags are those.
February 14 at 2:10pm ·

James Pashia
I purchased those i think through either Cheaperthandirt.com or Aimsurplus.com, the steel ones i got from Aim, i dont remember who i got the clear magazines from but i think it was Aim, dont think they have them right now, but they will have more soon im sure. the clear ones are cool in that you can see your ammo count.
February 14 at 2:15pm · · Like 1 person

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding
about 2 weeks ago · · ·

Alex Ferrier likes this.

[photo of massive amount of personal armament]
about 2 weeks ago · · ·

2 people like this.

lol, lab rats think they are "safe" until they are plucked out by a lab worker and injected with something or subjected to some bizarre experiment......Safety is an illusion, How SAFE do you think the citizens of the Bronx feel? there isnt any crime there with all those cops keeping them safe is there? How about St. Louis? Chicago? Maimi? LA?.......live in your illuision, i wont.
about 2 weeks ago · · ·

Michael Carrigee likes this.

Tony Seibel
i REALLY HATE my state's politicians, at least we aren't New Jersey :D
February 14 at 4:09am ·

James Pashia
lol, New Jersey has it against the law to own hollow point rounds, so by doing that you can only use ball ammo, so now they have made shooting someone even easier because ball rounds will go right through someone and not leave a round behind, doesnt stop offenders fast enough and create a shoot through danger to other persons, brainiack politicians there boy.
February 14 at 5:50am · ·
Like 1 person

Kyle Franceschini
sad face ;_; I live in jersey and im pro gun.
February 14 at 12:08pm · ·
Like 1 person

Tony Seibel
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA SUCKS FOR YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!
February 14 at 1:39pm ·

Tony Seibel
i want high capacity magazines for my dad's AK........ feelsbadman.jpg
February 14 at 1:39pm ·

James Pashia
awsome deals on magazines through AIMSURPLUS.COM
February 14 at 1:41pm ·

Tony Seibel
aimsurplus ROOLZ
February 14 at 1:42pm ·

James Pashia
oh yeah, i bought 2 of thier 75 round drum magazines, waiting for them to get more in so i can buy more. i also have 2 drum magazines for my AR rifles. I have enough AR magazines to fill 2 20mm ammo cans. one is loaded, the other empty. i bounce back and forth between them keeping one loaded, other resting teh springs. February 14 at 1:43pm · ...

I will live with my liberties and accept there are inherent dangers as our Forefathers understood. Most of America wants to feel "safe", not free. You can take your safety and keep that, I will live with my freedom.
about 2 weeks ago · · ·

As a Katrina survivor I will say with absolute certainty that firearms have saved many of my family and friend's lives during the aftermath of the hurricane.
about 2 weeks ago · · ·

James Pashia likes this.

Kenneth Kawano
I just want to remind you that repealing the Second Amendment would not ban gun ownership, it would simply permit the states to enact legislation tailored to their needs without having to fear centralized regulation from the federal government which failed to take their needs into account.
February 13 at 8:04pm ·

James Pashia
yes, but again, how do you go about repealing a constitutional amendment just recently confirmed by the Supreme Court as right of the individual?
February 13 at 8:06pm ·

Kenneth Kawano
It's an ideal, not a goal. The purpose of the idea is to stimulate responsible discussion of strong and sensible gun legislation.
February 13 at 8:09pm ·

Michael Carrigee
I will not be hindered in defending myself, and family, my friends, and my neighbors by your restrictions.
February 13 at 8:09pm ·

Michael Carrigee
"sensible"...? where do you draw the line?
February 13 at 8:09pm · ...

Fortunately you are losing the argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

File:Rtc.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below. Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help.

about 3 weeks ago · · ·

Alex Ferrier
Tis a thing of beauty.
February 8 at 7:19pm · · Like 2 people

Kyle Franceschini ?:D
February 9 at 3:43am ·

James Avery
New ideas are never popular right away.
February 9 at 10:32am ·

Kyle Franceschini
i know that's why gun ownership has increases over time.
February 9 at 11:56am · · Like 2 people

Kenneth Kawano
The idea of amending the Constitution to curtail gun ownership is neither new nor dead, but it is gaining traction as the incidents of rampant gun use continue to increase.
February 13 at 6:18pm ·

Kenneth Kawano
Eventually people will have had enough and begin to say that safety must trump chauvinistic devotion to anachronistic ideals.
February 13 at 6:19pm ·

Karl von Busse
got some statistics to prove either one of those claims.....I can produce plenty to prove the opposite. "Chauvinistic devotion to anachronistic ideals" as you put it are the reason you are free to make these insane statements. The Minute Men believed in the right to keep and bear arms and they are one of the reasons we no longer bow to a queen, unlike Barack who seems to bow to EVERYONE else.
February 13 at 6:21pm ·

Karl von Busse
As you can see from the map I posted gun ownership is growing....very fast!
February 13 at 6:22pm ·

Kenneth Kawano
Now, now, we're not here to criticize the President. After all, he's on your side.
February 13 at 6:22pm ·

Alex Ferrier
not on my side politically at all. nor was Bush
February 13 at 6:23pm ·

Karl von Busse
Actually he is not.....he is set to "announce" sweeping new bans this week. His DHS through the ATF is attempting to legislate new types of bans even though they have no authority to do so.
February 13 at 6:23pm · · Like 2 people

Karl von Busse
I was not a fan of Bush either. the last several Presidents have done great and continuing damage to the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country.
February 13 at 6:24pm · · Like 1 person

Kenneth Kawano
The right to keep arms perhaps is guaranteed, but there is no language that states that any type of arms may be kept. It is sensible and logical to presume that the types available may be regulated.
February 13 at 6:25pm ·

Karl von Busse
the actual wording is "shall not be infringed"......any type of regulation....in theory....violates this. Thats is not to say that I dont agree with certian types of regulation. My take is this: They do not enforce the laws on the books now so why would I trust them to make more?
February 13 at 6:27pm ·

Kenneth Kawano
We should apply needed pressure so that they will enforce those laws. And of course those laws will need refinements, so we may pressure them to pass them as needed. It's quite sensible.
February 13 at 6:30pm ·

Kenneth Kawano
Organizations like the NRA also need to be defanged.
February 13 at 6:31pm ·

Karl von Busse
The NRA is worthless anyway. Our "leaders" are the one that needs to be defanged. Without out our firearms we are no longer free men....we become subjects. Just ask anyone that lived through Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China or Castro's Cuba.As a matter of fact, 9 out of 10 dictator's agree, gun control works!
February 13 at 6:36pm · · Like 2 people

Karl von Busse
The fact is we HAVE been pressuring them to enforce for years.....their answer? More laws that hamstring the law abiding and give the criminal predator another victem
February 13 at 6:37pm · · Like 1 person

Kenneth Kawano
Well, now, Japan has strict gun control and they are hardly any sort of dictatorship.
February 13 at 6:38pm ·

Karl von Busse
Thank you for proving one of my points. Japan has a fairly high crime rate. THeir citizens can not defend themselves. http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ja-japan/cri-crime
February 13 at 6:41pm ·

Karl von Busse
It is also apples to oranges. The Japanese have a COMPLETELY different way of life than we do yet they still have crime problems......ever heard of the Yakuza? One of the most secretive and violent crime organizations in the world.
February 13 at 6:43pm ·

Karl von Busse
After researching the Japanese gun control issue you mentioned it is obvious that they are living in a society that is near a police state. After reading the broad powers enjoyed by the police there I can tell you that if a cop did these things here he would be in violation of most of the basic civil rights offered by our Constitution. http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html
February 13 at 6:51pm ·

James Pashia
Guns are strictly prohibited in China, only police and the military have them, however they still have mass stabbings in schools, have you seen the news lately? there have been multiple mass stabbings of children in schools, kids that died, thinking they were safe in school. Good job, proof again the government and all its laws cant save you from someone willing to BREAK those laws for thier own agenda.
February 13 at 7:24pm ·

Kenneth Kawano
Well, and kids here die from gunshots. At least with a knife you have to be next to your victim. But unless we want our kids wearing vests in school, what defense have they against the Klebolds of your nation?
February 13 at 7:25pm ·

Kenneth Kawano
"our" nation, lol
February 13 at 7:27pm ·

Michael Carrigee
Here's a great idea: Instead of "childproofing" firearms lets "gunproof" children. Teach them responsibility and firearms safety at the range and take them to shoot. Woah! never though of that huh?
February 13 at 7:30pm · · Like 3 people

Kenneth Kawano
Better still, let's teach them a deep aversion to using guns in the first place.
February 13 at 7:32pm ·

Alex Ferrier
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2006/03/gun-vs-knife.html
February 13 at 7:33pm ·

Michael Carrigee
There's no way you're gonna get rid of them. Criminals will always have them and not law abiding citizens if you try and take them away.
February 13 at 7:35pm · · Like 2 people

James Pashia
simple, answer this question. Why is it that there are all these laws about NOT bringing guns to schools, but people do anyway and mass shootings happen? I havent heard lately about a mass shooting at a Gunshow, or at at a gun range, but you hear about them at schools where "intelligent" people are. Because when someone snaps or decides to break the law, they go where they will be least likely to run into resistance. If Teachers and students, properly licensed to carry concealed weapons were to do so, i guarantee school shootings would cease. Easy victims arent there anymore. "crazy" is a weakness and the weak prey on the defenseless. Like the old saying, why do frogs eat flies? because they can, and if flies had machine guns, frogs wouldnt F^& * with them. teaching someone to be afraid of something doesnt mean that they wont use it, teachign everyone to be afraid of something means that when a person who is 'afraid" of something learns how to use it, they can use it to terrorize those that are afraid of it. how about you teach responsiblity (yeah, responsibility, its hard for those of you who dont have it or exercise it to even fathom this concept) With great power (firearms) comes great responsibility to teach how to use it properly and it can STILL be abused, look at world leaders, there are some that are good, others bad, its not the power, its not the tool its how people are trained how to use it and what they do with it.
February 13 at 7:35pm · · Like 1 person

Karl von Busse
NO, thats not "better yet" I have taught my 6 kids a deep respect for guns. They have been a part of my family for many generations. Shooting sport are part of our way of life. Who are you to judge that? How dare you attempt to shove your belief structure down MY throat? So not only do you want to ban freedom to own firearms but apparently you dont like freedom of expression either. Whats next? Maybe freedom of religion....or Freedom of speech? BTW 10 generations of gun owners (at least) and not one murderer among us. Ill tell you what we do have though.......several cops and a large number of patriots that have honorably served their country......myself included.
February 13 at 7:38pm · · Like 3 people

Karl von Busse
My 6 yo son is quite a shot BTW. He has his own "Red Rider"
February 13 at 7:43pm ·

James Pashia
Am absolutely amazed of the number of people that will believe every sound bite on TV and want to live thier lives in some fairy tale land where villans all have pointy moustaches and beards, where nothing REALLY bad happens to those who live thier lives with thier head in the sand. Were i to have kids, which i dont right now, i will NOT ready snow white and cinderella to my daughter because i will not program her to be a victim needing to be "rescued" the way we have done to our daughters. Why do you think they mostly end up in horrible relationships, because those that do arent TAUGHT how to get a good mate, but settle on who wants to "rescue" them. Take respoinsibility, TEACH dont PROGRAM. Learn. (bear in mind, just because you dont know how to use a hammer doesnt mean you cant be quite astute at hitting your thumb with it.)
February 13 at 7:53pm ·

Karl von Busse
My 16 yo Daughter is nearly as accurate with my AR as I am. She is also good with both my 9mm and my .40 cal pistols. She also UNDERSTANDS shooting safety rules. Education is the answer NOT the installation of fear or worse yet......ignoring the fact that you could be victimized.
February 13 at 7:58pm ·

Danny Corder
Forbidding something increases curiosity. Refer to the prohibition of alcohol
February 13 at 8:03pm ·

Michael Carrigee
Don't become the victim, as in all of the people who are not willing to defent themselves.
February 13 at 8:05pm · ...

It is time for those of us who believe the Second Amendment should be repealed to stand up and run for Congress. To that end I am accumulating links to web articles and lead comments advocating repeal at http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm . Best wishes, --Mike
Mike Barkley, Candidate for Congress
www.mjbarkl.com
about 3 weeks ago · · ·

Kenneth Kawano likes this.

Karl von Busse
Best of luck to you.
February 6 at 9:28am ·

Alex Ferrier
You will fail.you should ban cars or swimming pools first because they kill way more people.
February 6 at 9:51am · · Like 1 person

Kyle Franceschini
"facepalm"
February 6 at 12:39pm ·

Kyle Franceschini
Not to you alex to op
February 6 at 12:39pm · · Like 1 person

James Pashia
How do you plan on trying to repeal a constitutional amendment that was just determined by the Supreme Court to be a right guaranteed to the individual?
February 13 at 7:54pm ·

James Pashia
planning on having a mutiny against the Supreme Court? Or perhaps you are one of those wonderfully bright people that thinks the Law doesnt apply to them?
February 13 at 7:55pm ·

Karl von Busse
More likely a "university educated" individual that believes that they know better than the Court or the founding fathers.
February 13 at 8:04pm · ...

[nothing?]
about 2 weeks ago · · ·
Karl von Busse likes this.

Stop wasting your time on gun control.
Ok, instead of wasteing your time on attempting to change the 2nd amendment, which is a constitutionally guaranteed right, confirmed by Supreme Court, why dont you petition for changes to medical record and mental health laws. Currently, it is against the law for Dr's to report your medical information to law enforcement without a subpoena as it violates privacy laws and opens the doctors and hospitals to civil penalties for violation of the patients privacy. Exactly how do you propose to stop crazy people from getting firearms when the VT shooter got his legally through a dealer? There is NO database or system to track crazy people when doing a back ground check on persons purchasing firearms. Also, exactly what standards do we set as to what makes a person "crazy" enough to be prevented from purchasing a firearm?
additionally i would ask how do you go about using the medical community to strip an American citizen of his constitutionally protected right when they have neither committed a Lautenberg Amendment violation, nor a Felony? By doing so, and acting as agents of law enforcement agencies "agents" then not only Civily being responsible financially for divulging individuals medical history and information to law enforcement agencies, as agents of law enforcement (dont think that someone somewhere wont try to use it as an end run around the constitution) they become liable for violations of civil rights by through thier opinion denying an individual of a constitutionally protected right. To purchase firearms through an FFL requires the dealer to call into the local law enforcment agencies for a background check. if nothing raises a red flag, the sale goes through. Since there are no laws preventing thier being liable, what DR in thier right mind is going to risk thier license and willingly open both thier wallet and insurance company to lawsuits over rights violations? Drugs are illegal and people in VIOLATION of the law aquire them, so what makes you think that outlawing firearms will keep criminals from aquiring them? If i can walk out and within 3 miles get cocaine from Bolivia or Columbia....i think i could get a firearm from Mexico. Remember, the VT shooter purchased his firearms legally, through a licensed dealer, INCLUDING the background check but there was nothing in it to raise a red flag. Changing the laws and responsibilities of mental health professionals in reporting potentially crazy people for inclusion into a registry that can be referenced by law enforcment agencies for verification that they arent crazy. and NO you cannot pass a law that causes me to get a mental evaluation every time that i want to purchase a firearm as 1. Americans cannot be made to BUY anything in reference to a right, as well as 2. i havent committed any crime and IAW the constitution, am innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. More gun laws will not prevent shootings. trying to outlaw high capacity "clips" ('tis a moron that calls magazines "clips", clips only come in the capacity max of 10 rounds) only causes the price to go up, the manufacturers to produce like crazy and they are bought up and they become readily available everywhere. Focus on the CAUSE of the problem, not the TOOL used in the crime. Why isnt the Canon or Nikon camera blamed for child porn? because its a tool and we blame the individual responsible. With younger people constantly blamed and responsible for vehicle accidents often resulting in deaths, i havent heard to much about raising the driving age. I also havent heard anything about REDUCING the driving age, even though older people cause accidents all the time often resulting in deaths. Blame the perpetrator, not the tool, the tool is an inanimate object that only gets it's power from the intent of the user or abuser. Common sence people, focus on what will work instead of what feels good after some kneejerk situation.
about 2 weeks ago · View Doc · · ·5 people like this.

James Pashia
Also, remember the 2nd amendment is a right guaranteed by the constitution, there is no RIGHT TO DRIVE, driving is a priveledge that can be revoked by the state. If we have so many deaths due to vehicle accidents, and operating them is a priveledge, how exactly do you go about revoking someones constitutionally guaranteed right?
February 13 at 7:19pm · ...

James Pashia
about 2 weeks ago · · ·

550 rapes and 1100 murders are prevented everyday just buy the victim showing their firearm. (Bureau of justice statistics) and some people in this group would rather have those people killed and raped. "every thirteen seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal"
Read more at Suite101: Self-Defense Involving a Firearm: When Guns Are Used to Stop Crimes Rather than Commit Them http://www.suite101.com/content/selfdefense-involving-a-firearm-a140512#ixzz1Dtc1inZU

Self-Defense Involving a Firearm
www.suite101.com
Americans own 240 million-plus guns. Chances are some are used in self-defense against criminals. This article offers details relevant to the gun debate in America.

about 2 weeks ago · · ·

Michael Carrigeeabout 2 weeks ago · · ·

What argument?
about 2 weeks ago · · ·

Check this out. I really think This needs some discussion. I completely agree with her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE&feature=player_embedded

Dr. Suzanna Hupp Testimony Before Congress on the 2nd Amendment
www.youtube.com
Luby's Cafeteria Massacre survivor Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp testifying to Congress on why good Americans obeying bad gun laws leads to death and suffering. The former Texas House Representative shared her story about her parents being killed before her eyes by a shooter in a Luby's Restaurant. Due to . . .

about 3 weeks ago · · ·
Michael Carrigee likes this.