If they were concerned with public health they wouldn't be pushing GMO poisons and street drugs on our kids. The biggest danger americans face today is their own government, obviously.

The 3 P's of Firearms: Purchase; Proficiency; Presentation.

And, Jessica, there are limits to to the level of corruption and tyranny that normal citizens are willing to put up with before "correcting" the problem.

One question would be why so many victim-mentality libtards are so willing to bend over and hold the Vaseline jar.

And that is Jessica Solce’s opinion. Yes? Does that female idiot actually believe she can convince the American people that it is she who can delineate what limits are put on our rights.

What that dumb broad doesn't realize, is that our Constitution does not GIVE US OUR RIGHTS, it secures our rights given to us by God, the cosmos, or whatever you want to call it, from an over stepping, bloated Federal Government. Our founding fathers were one hell of a lot smarter that the idiots we now have in government, and is the reason they worded our Constitution they way they did. They knew full well that basic human intention would try and take and twist all laws to their advantage if given a position of power.

The rights given to each and everyone of us at birth by God, cannot be delineated by anyone. Those rights are immutable and forever. They cannot be sliced and diced by arrogant morons who believe it is their duty to corral any and all who do not think like them or want to abide by their selfish dictates.

When our Constitution says; "Shall not be infringed", that is exactly what it means. It does not imply that you can infringe up a right to possess a weapon because someone else may be afraid of it. It was assumed that if you have a problem, then it is up to you to solve it without trying to force others to do your bidding because you are afraid.

I am of a mind that anyone who tries to twist our Constitution to their advantage, whether a lawyer, Congressional Representative, or a President should be brought up on charges of insurrection. Yes that is correct because our Constitution is the Authority of this land and any one who tries to rip it apart, IS TRYING FORCE AN UPRAISING AGAINST OUR FOUNDATION !!!

public health issue” and this, of course, sets up guns and gun ownership as issues to be dealt with in the same way as swine flu, bird flu, chicken pox, or just like Cigaretes as in that city in Wisconsin if people didn't speak up sale of tobacco would be banned in the whole town. We never learn that these kinds of Prohobition has no place here!
It will take a revolution in order to undo these abuses. Put in new and better protecitons against these kinds of laws.

Blech Just puked That premise is the core to all our problems now. Everytime you let that sentimet in you fail and we go down these slippery slopes were at now. One thing leads to another etc...
Once you allow one limit to liberty then you allow more, it's always been that way and will never be any different. That is why Daniel 2vs 44 needs to become reality that way were not lead by people any more!

Look at England, knife , machete, axes and bat injures / deaths exceed all US gun injuries/deaths including Police and self defense on a per capita basis..........They have even proposed limiting sales of of large kitchen knives. Australia has seen a very small drop in gun deaths mostly because they are not used in self defense. Criminals still have them and Australia has confiscated over 200,000 illegally smuggled guns since gun confiscation............criminals will find a way. Canada gave up registration on long guns because it made no difference with criminals having them but cost almost 1/3 of what their military cost yearly to operate.

Sure as long as one's rights don't interfere with the natural rights of others.
But this is not what the gun grabbers are saying. Gun grabbers try to create a cult of defenselessness, so government will have total domination -- that is a marxist totalitarian collective and very un-American. It is similar to what the Bolsheviks did in Russia. They registered the gun owners in Moscow and weeks later slaughtered them all. It is the same ethnics driving the gun grabber agenda today -- the commies aligned with AIPAC and UN. Its part of their Agenda 21 fraud to seize all your lands.

Yep, the constitution was designed to limit government...not the people.

We already have limits....I've been in the market for an atv mounted mini gun in .45 for years now.....to no avail. Now how is it that they haven't already limited my right to bear arms? I have my atv.......

The fundamental problem with this approach is the article proceeds from the false notion that the bill of rights grants us said rights. This is NOT the case. The bill of rights simply states our inalienable rights, derived from our creator, or the laws of nature. Whichever you prefer. All that is listed in the bill is WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN"T DO!!!. Nowhere in there does it list any "limitations". Don't let these libtards fool you with their BS....

Americans don't have a "gun problem," they have a spiritual problem.

No we have a gun problem: we are not using them on the correct people.

Liberalism and Progressivism are a mental disorders and are public health issues. The CDC should look into to them first, and leave guns out of it. 400,000 people die each year due to heart disease, WTF is the CDC doing about that?

Pushing the use and safety of heart disease-causing chemicals in our food and water supply. That's what they're doing about it.

Sure every house should own a long riffle equivalent or better than the potential enemy's. People who fly the flag should be ready to join the militia (or sheriff's posse) when invasion comes. Thus people along the borders have a right to own military grade weapons -- to quickly thwart marauding gangs. People in cities have a right to resist muggers and home invasion. To some extent owing a gun might be a civil duty -- even if it is shot gun shells of salt or bean bag guns.

Most of the gun grabber have been found to have their own weapons -- thus they are merely seeking selfish advantage via twisted politics. A governance that supports lawlessness has no right to seize your guns. The financial institutions have become organised crime, and will breed criminals in the streets out of disparity. But gun grabbers will continue to push a false model of society where certain people are allowed to be privileged criminals and others are suppressed.

***THIS video is the BEST Documentary on Gun Control I have ever seen. Please pass this on. It's a life saver.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

The only issue I have with this s the numbers are very conservative. Numbers from China are, from what I've read, around 45m and in Ukraine, around 35-40m. Either way, the point is very well made and EXTREMELY relevant.

I watched 1/2 of it. It is good...

The premise that there are limitations on rights is flawed. Rights are freely exercised and have no specific limits, especially limits arbitrarily imposed by government. A right however does not extend past the point that infringes on another's rights. This infringement must be an actual act that causes another physical harm or puts them in imminent danger of serious harm. An example, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre oversteps ones first amendment right because it puts others in imminent serious danger. There are no instances involving the mere ownership, possession or carrying of a firearm that rises to this level of imminent danger. On the flip side, just because someone may feel scared or intimidated by another's exercise of their rights it does not mean the scared persons rights are violated. There must be an act that would cause a reasonable person to feel intimidated or threatened and they should be able to articulate why they felt this way.

Well said Giggun. Great post !

Oops that was Biggun. sorry.

The constitution of Russia is almost exactly like US except each part ends with "Except as proscribed by law" Thus this idea that the Constitution is like in Russia subject to limits set on the whimsy of Obama and staff

kkk cops murder another innocent black person ---this time an unarmed schizophrenic woman:

http://countercurrentnews.c...

The only "gun problem" in this country is criminals having guns. The only other "problem" is stupid liberals that think legally owned guns are dangerous to anyone other than criminals. Just look at the statistics in Chicago. You would make a bigger dent in crime by simply banning black males between the ages of 14 and 45, not guns....

You have to ask why do they push so hard on gun confiscation It is all about power and keeping them in control for life which also means keeping you under their thumb. The two go together. Power to them and serfdom to you. Why do those bums still sit in positons of power?

Because no matter who comes to power, human nature dictates that the majority will go to the mat to try and maintain that power, regardless of who gets hurt.

“The No Control trailer features ousted Colorado state senator John Morse (D-Colo. Springs) pressing for more gun control, and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence’s Shaina Harrison declaring, “The whole country… [has] a gun problem.””

The only Gun Problem that we have in the USA is that too many Un-Elected GOON Agencies like the Trash Picking Goons at the BLM have the Guns, and they think that they have Constitutional Authority to Shoot African Americans in the Back as in the case of D’Andre Berghardt Jr.,
http://www.reviewjournal.co...

This woman who made this film must be on the Communist Gun Grabbing Liberal-Tard Payroll. The only people in the USA that need have guns taken away are the Un-Elected Authoritarian Bureaucratic GOONS! These GOONS have Abused their "Anti-Constitutional Power" which is FAUX to begin with. Where is there mention of the 3 Letter GOON Agencies in the United States Constitution?

So-called "Diversity" represents a gun pointed at every White person.

Diversity means chasing down Every Last White Person.

The program of Diversity will continue until there are no White children left.

"Diversity" is a code word for White Genocide.

we should be able to buy anything that the military has and NO serial numbers. Serial numbers on guns are unconstitutional. Why? The government says that if you have a firearm without a serial number that you are committing a crime. So you can't posses arms unless they have a serial number?
Let the Gobal Marxist Social trash come around and collect weapons. Without enforcement then it is just hot air. We should be deporting this commie trash.

Jews have been involved in pushing most gun control legislation in
America. Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, Kohn etc.. Why won't Jones
and his writers mention this?

idiot

The Bolsheviks don't want you to bear arms......it gets in the way of their complete takeover of the country......they are 90% there already.....this guy knew what was coming.

https://www.stormfront.org/...

It's not gun rights! It's the right to keep and bear arms, there is a big difference! The right to keep and bear arms isn't just for firearms/guns, according to court rulings from the early 1800's and onwards it's to be able to keep and bear arms in common use by the millitary at the present time. That means not only the firearms they are using but also tanks, ships, and aircraft and anything else in common use by the millitary. All of these things are arms. The millitias should have these things and be able to properly train the public in their proper and safe use (Their communities). There should be more firearm training schools around to and it should also be mandatory for everyone who wants to own a firearm or other kind of arms to get the proper and safe training for in their use.

Do you believe in "registering" your guns?

No, not if it means giving the government a tool to go about confiscating them, but there has to be some means to go about making sure people get the proper training to use the arms they buy.

Good deal, but always remember, those guns are an illadabgable(sp) right to protect you from a government that begins to take away your rights. That is the 1st reason they gave it to you and the ONLY reason. All the other reasons we use them is definetly a plus!! So, I would just take that first sentence out...lol. There is no making deals there. You should assume they will always take away your rights. That was given to us.

These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.
So, my dear people of home of the brave , do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

No, your right is unlimited, and extends as far as infringing on another's right to keep & bare arms.
A right is not a collective function. If some dumbass city people use their arms to attempt to corner the unConstitutional black market on drugs; the people who do not engage in that lifestyle do not forfeit their rights.

The "gun problem" America has, is there never seems the be a gun in the hands of a good and capable American at the time when it is truly needed. There are far too many unarmed victims, and police force that are always minutes away when seconds count.

The former doesn't have to be that way, while the latter can only change by making the police omnipresent. As we see almost daily, the police shoot and kill almost as many unarmed people as the criminals do.

If the main purpose of government is to protect the rights and property of the people, then it cannot take the route of becoming the total police state in the name of protecting us, not without defeating the very reason for their existence.

If you want to see what America looks like unarmed, just look at the American Indians when they were first placed on the reservations, many of which were no better than death camps. The first thing the government did was disarm them. The Nazis admitted that they got their idea for their concentration camps from the way the U.S. government dealth with the Indians.

If you want America to be one big Indian reservation, and every American outside of government to be a "ward of the state", then the first thing you have to do is disarm the people so that government will be their only protector. The problem is, then there is no one left to protect us from those in government, and they will have their way with us, with total impunity.

thisguyisadumbass....look in the mirror, see that chain, and collar around your neck?
You must love being their slave ! Whether you believe in God or not, is your business, as my believing is mine. Do as you wish, good luck my friend.

In the history of the U.S. Obama has violated more gun laws than any other person in his conspiracy to arm Mexican drug cartels to undermine the Second Amendment.

If we could only have the list of ALL co-conspirators, the buyers, the traffikers , the government employees involved, Holder and the DOJ goons.....

Who in the living hell does Obama think he is.....shipping guns to mexico to undermine the Second Amendment.....Obama should be in a Supermax Prison.

And we haven't into got into Obama and Hillary arming al qaeda/ISIS with medium weapons......illegaly

Yep!

Of course there are limits to Constitutional rights. For example, the limits set upon the 2nd Amendment don't allow the government to infringe in any way upon our ownership of personal arms. Since they can't place any restrictions on it, as it is the only Amendment that is so clearly above ANY governmental infringements, we can own whatever sort of personal arms we want. A squad operated weapon is not a personal arm. A thermonuclear device is not a personal arm. A fighter jet is not a personal arm. fully automatic firearms are personal arms and so is any handgun. If people would simply follow the laws, we would have whatever guns we wanted and those needing "security" from those we were given arms against are more than free to apply for citizenship in a country that will oppress them to their satisfaction.
I carry a gun every day, everywhere I go. I have never and will never ask permission in the form of a concealed carry license. I already have my license and it was granted to me by simply being born. The government doesn't create that right, they are only forced to observe it. Never in my life will there be any restrictions on the guns I carry. It cannot happen to a free man.

I agree except for the 'personal' arms part. I can't find anything but plain 'arms' in my Constitution.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In the above, 'arms' is all-inclusive. It makes no prohibition against arms simply because they take more than one individual (whether of the 'people' or a more specific 'militia') to operate.

Those types of non-'personal' weapons you mention are limited in their ownership and use by their very nature (rules, policies, and infringements aside). I can't pick up an F-16 at Bob's Aero-mart. If I somehow could find and afford one, it will fall apart in no time without a team of mechanics, a fuel supplier, a replacement parts supplier, and so forth. I'd need land, a hangar, and good communication with others also using airspace. Each of the individuals involved in running and maintaining the weapon has some say and ability to affect whether the weapon can be used or not. They each become a check and balance against any nutcase that would use it for ill gain. And other groups wielding similar weapons and countermeasures become checks and balances against that group.

Having equal arms to that of the government was first and foremost a deterrent to government behaving as the British just had (at the time of the Second Amendment's creation). It is unfortunate that people have been slowly but surely led to believe that such capability is scary and unjustified. Equally unfortunate, the government seems to be becoming an upgraded tyranny from centuries ago.

I guess there is always a time to be reminded that history repeats itself. Do the people wake up and turn it around peaceably while it's still possible, or do we hurt badly before we have to do something to keep anything of what our ancestors paid for in blood, sweat, and tears?

By the way, if you think it's still possible to "turn it around peaceably", you haven't been paying attention.

Since an individual liberty is just that, an individual liberty, how could something not operated by an individual be included? That's an easy one and it is why individual private citizens can't buy thermo nukes. That one is beyond easy.

Once again you seem to limit the right protected in the Second Amendment with language that is not there.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.

Where does it say _only_ an 'individual' right? Where does it say _only_ individually-operated ('personal') arms?

Yes, in the context the Bill of Rights was made, the protected rights undoubtedly apply to individuals. But you cannot ignore the very language of those rights which make it clear that they _also_ apply to groups. The Second Amendment specifies plural 'militia' and 'people'. And I believe it was intentionally written as such. How could the militia or the people keep up with government, if they were barred from operating weapons requiring multiple individuals? Again, the whole purpose was to make it unfavorable for the government to overstep its bounds and intimidate the people or worse.

Undoing many decades of gradual twisting, perversion, and demonizing of the Second Amendment is a serous task. I see in your second reply that you imply violence is the only answer. It may well come to that. But I'm going to exercise peaceful means up to that point. Both solutions are perfectly valid in the right circumstances.

Although I share your assertion that governments doesn't create a rights, I disagree with your premise that rights have limits. In fact, constitutional rights - as written - do not (nor should they) have limits.

If individuals are restricted from possessing tanks, attack aircraft,
and even thermonuclear weapons, then shouldn't governments be restricted
from owning them as well? After all, governments are just groups of
people aren't they?

Governments don't restrict themselves to these rules, however. I think that part of the reason is that most people don't view governments as people. They view governments instead as a force of nature - like a hurricane or a tsunami.

Because of this, it's important to emphasize that governments don't have rights. Governments have POWERS. And it's the exercising of POWER where the root of the matter lies.

Governments
engage in all sorts of immoral activities because they have the POWER to do so. They can steal money by threat of force (they call it
taxation). They can use that stolen money to benefit they're friends and punish their enemies (they call these subsidies). They can murder indiscriminately (they call it war). They can
kidnap people and cage them against their will (they call it an
arrest).

The list goes on, but the worst part is that these powers GROW with each session of congress.

If constitutional rights have limits, then shouldn't government powers have limits as well?

Only one spells out absolutely no governmental control is the Second, so there goes that argument. The 2A protects individuals rights to arms. Individuals do not operate thermo nukes or tanks. If you think that something requiring an army to operate it falls under "individual" liberty, now you are the one spinning it.