A member reports that his local gun store in Front Royal sold $100,000 worth of AR-15s in one day. We should avoid using the phrase "gun control", but rather use "gunowner rights denial". Guns don't get controlled; people do. Such a gunowner rights denial should take a constitutional amendment.

What do you think? Is the debate about guns or rights?

Views: 1543

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's absolutely about rights--not the right of the people to own guns for hunting or personal defense, but the right of Americans to defy tyranny.  If you analyze the available statistics on gun crime and gun laws, it is unquestionable that there is no positive link whatsoever between the availability of guns of any type and crime rates--if anything, the opposite is true, e.g. more guns lead to lower crime rates.

The "progressives", or communists, as we should rightly call them, have proven through copious action and inaction that they don't care the slightest bit about saving lives.  Their only purpose is to deny us the ability to resist their plans to establish a dictatorship over America.  To deny us the ability to fight back when they suspend the Constitution and send government thugs into our homes to search and seize whatever they choose, and when they start arresting and taking the property of those who speak out against them or their agenda.

If we allow the Second Amendment to fall--even incrementally, as is the standard practice of the communists--then the rest of the Constitution will fall soon thereafter.  This is about ALL rights, not just gun rights.  This is about the survival of a once free nation.

Mr. Strasser, you made your point very eloquently, I agree with you 100%. Thank You.


The 2nd Amendment has been whittled away at for decades. Every restrictive gun control law is a violation of the 2nd. There are no qualifiers or exceptions in the text/language. Regardless of whether we may agree with it or not, prohibiting ANYONE (including formerly convicted felons and/or crazies) from keeping and bearing arms violates the 2nd. Remedy? Amend the 2nd to reflect the desired exceptions. However, that could create a very slippery slope that would make more people "felons" or be clasified as "crazy".

I beleive the 2nd is good just as it is. What we need to do is force people to have to be more responsible for their own safety.

The US Constitution is suppose to be the supreme Law of the Land. It's a contract between the States as to the powers the Fed government has and the limitations thereof. All laws made by the United States must be in Pursuance of the Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2). All other powers are reserved to the States, or to the people (10th Amendment)

Jerry Morris--Regardless of whether we may agree with it or not, prohibiting ANYONE (including formerly convicted felons and/or crazies) from keeping and bearing arms violates the 2nd. Remedy? Amend the 2nd to reflect the desired exceptions.


Common Jerry--Did you think we were going to bypass what you posted here?  We all agree I am sure with you on a NO Restrictions on gun control--Period,  but when a person HAS violated their right to bear arms by endangering someone else's rights, by pushing a gun in their face or even worse, shooting/killing them, then they lose the right to gun ownership. 

These people are imprisoned and they pay the price back to society for their crime.  When they get out of prison, they continue to lose their right to own or use guns anywhere in the United States. 

We just have to do this guy for the protection of the masses.   Just because someone puts in 10 years or even 20 years for killing someone with the use of a firearm, doesn't mean that they have been rehabilitated.

The 2nd Amendment is NOT good as it is pal.  Sometime back in 1994 the "REAL" assault rifles were banned.  That law should be overturned.  Still, it is the people who are criminals who are the law breakers using those guns.  Stiffer penalties should be set for those who use guns in the process of a crime.  That's WHY capitol punishment works, but law makers are pussies about putting someone to death, but they don't mind the killing of babies---thousands of them being aborted every year.

 I believe in the degrees of Hell for people who allowed, even perpetuated the laws to include partial birth abortion of a child.

Very well said!!!       So many have sacrificed their lives to fight communism---now it thrives in our own white-house...

We deserve to own the same types of weapons that the radical terrorists will most certainly have,you see the weapons obummer has supplied to the rebels in other country's,it is only because it will advance the

goal of the muslim brotherhood into our country,world domination,they'll never succeed even the bigger

nations like Russia can over take Israel,he will be up against "God's" favorite people he won't let them be taken over,Russia will turn tail and run back to Russia,then China will try but they to will fail,"Our God" is great and never fails!!! "NEVER FAILS."

Prime example is the Concealed Carry License that is offered by many of the States now. They are currently getting the good, honest gunowners who are by all efforts complying by their laws. Right to Carry was ours in the first place! They took the right to carry away from us, and in return eventually would ration it out as a "Privelidge" by virtue of a Concealed Carry License.  Charles Schumer once quipped to the NRA that "The Second Amendment is not absolute, get over it NRA!" I'd beg to differ, no not to Schumer, however to fellow Patriots and the Freedom loving Americans that are still the majority despite the media slant against us.

Absolutely,  it's about Rights ..It's about our Constitution and our Bill of Rights that these "Communists have decided doesn't suit their purpose, of desolving the US of A into their own private empire .. Citizens and any "Rights" be damned ..Wake up folks they are destroying this Nation an inch at a Time ..

GOD help us  before we fall ..

    The debate SHOULD be about rights ,  guns are inanimate tools that have no rights or wrongs .  there are camera clubs , they focus on photography , not their tools the cameras .  There are flying clubs but they concentrate on the flying , not on the machines . etc: etc : 

 Couldnt agree more, the govt has been buying up the bullets to make them cost more for us and they are using our own money to do it with,nice huh . You can buy russian ammo,isnt that ironic. We are in big trouble,and if this bozo is cornered,whew,watch out,anything is possible.

We don't have a president any longer, he wants to be a DICTATOR Congress better act according to constitutional law soon, VERY SOON.

 Does anyone else feel that we have been outplayed and we are not catching up to them. Listen,67-70 % of americans,in every poll said no to obamacare right,if that was republican as president and these same figures were in play,would that republican president tell the american people to go screw, ABSOLUTELY NOT !. That is the difference between commies and us,they dont care about anything except what they want and they would do anything to obtain without hesitation and life is expendable,anyones.




Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy: ‘The Real Second Amendment Isn’t Absolute

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) tweeted Saturday there is a “real” Second Amendment and an “imaginary” one and he believes the real one is “not absolute.”

Murphy, “I support the real 2nd Amendment, not the imaginary 2nd Amendment. And the real 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute.”

The statement was a precursor to his call for banning “assault rifles” in the wake of the Santa Fe High School shooting, even though “assault rifles” were not used in the attack.

Murphy said the “real 2nd Amendment…allows Congress to wake up to reality and ban these assault rifles that are designed for one purpose only – to kill as many people as fast as possible.”

Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) said the Santa Fe High School attackers used a .38 revolver and a shotgun to carry out his heinous acts. Therefore, a ban on “assault rifles” would have done nothing to prevent the attack from occurring or the tragic loss of life from taking place.

It should be noted that Saturday was not the first time Sen. Murphy called the essence of the Second Amendment into question. On August 6, 2013, Breitbart News reported that Murphy told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that “The Second Amendment is not an absolute right, not a God-given right. It has always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has.”

Murphy did not grapple with the words, “Shall not be infringed.”


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service