Moms make case for gun control

Moms make case for gun control

There are 9245 comments on the usatoday.com story from Mar 16, 2013, titled Moms make case for gun control. In it, usatoday.com reports that:

Peg Paulson had never beaten a path through the halls of Congress before or met a U.S. senator's staffer or advocated for a controversial issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at usatoday.com.

Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#2023 May 23, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
It's amazing how liberal propaganda spreads faster than the truth, isn't it?
And yet, the birther effort doesn't go away. Or the rhetoric of Obama being Muslim.

Some people just won't let lies die.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#2024 May 23, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
It's amazing how liberal propaganda spreads faster than the truth, isn't it?
You know? That right wing propaganda of non cons wanting to take away guns?

That's just a hoot!

And it's still being shoveled by cons!

amazing.....

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2025 May 23, 2013
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>. The AP story, the IRS scandal and Benghazi are all stories that hurt President Obama, a liberal.

If the "liberal propaganda" were real, wouldn't there be stories about republican wrong doings?

You are such a mouth breather. You hate the lame stream media until they turn on the PResident and now you idiots are proponents for the free press. Too fricken funny. Your as hypocritical as you are hateful.
Please show where I have voiced one syllable in support of the MSM. You make up crap just to have something to say.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2026 May 23, 2013
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>. The AP story, the IRS scandal and Benghazi are all stories that hurt President Obama, a liberal.

If the "liberal propaganda" were real, wouldn't there be stories about republican wrong doings?

You are such a mouth breather. You hate the lame stream media until they turn on the PResident and now you idiots are proponents for the free press. Too fricken funny. Your as hypocritical as you are hateful.
The topic of my statement was misconceptions about gun shows. You somehow end up on this tangent.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2027 May 23, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>And yet, the birther effort doesn't go away. Or the rhetoric of Obama being Muslim.

Some people just won't let lies die.
There is a reason for that! It's the liberal propaganda attempting to conceal the truth. Why, if it is illegal to become POTUS unless one is a natural born US Citizen, would the investigation into Obama's Citizenship be put off until after the election?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2028 May 23, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>You know? That right wing propaganda of non cons wanting to take away guns?

That's just a hoot!

And it's still being shoveled by cons!

amazing.....
I see that little comment REALLY got under the skin of you Liberals! Lmao!

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2029 May 23, 2013
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry. Scalia gives "opinions".
What you posted is not a fact, it's the opinion of a Justice, one of the most controversial, politically leaning, justices.

Scalia has said many stupid things but that doesn't make them facts. That makes them stupid.

When the constitution is amended, it changes. Is it breathing? Nope but it is far different from the day it was signed because our forefathers designed it to change with the times and it has.
Blacks are free. Women can vote. Why? Because our founding fathers were far smarter than Justice Scalia and if they heard him say what you posted, they would all laugh until they pissed themselves.

PS: Congress passes bills and the President signs them into law, not the Supreme Court. They can over turn laws they feel are unconstitutional or tweek them but they certainly don't make laws on their own.
Yet when barefoot quotes Scalia, it's gospel. Lol.
Liberals and their double standards...

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2030 May 23, 2013
I notice no one wants to know the answer to the question, in 2010 how many of the 15,000 criminals caught attempting to purchase a firearm illegally where prosecuted?
I wonder why that is?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#2031 May 23, 2013
The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight. To the gun lobby, the Second Amendment is all rights and no regulation. One important fact that is (conveniently) never mentioned by the gunloons, is that we’ve always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#2032 May 23, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet when barefoot quotes Scalia, it's gospel. Lol.
Liberals and their double standards...
Huh? Blah, blah, blah, blah ...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2033 May 23, 2013
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry. Scalia gives "opinions".
What you posted is not a fact, it's the opinion of a Justice, one of the most controversial, politically leaning, justices.
Scalia has said many stupid things but that doesn't make them facts. That makes them stupid.
When the constitution is amended, it changes. Is it breathing? Nope but it is far different from the day it was signed because our forefathers designed it to change with the times and it has.
Blacks are free. Women can vote. Why? Because our founding fathers were far smarter than Justice Scalia and if they heard him say what you posted, they would all laugh until they pissed themselves.
PS: Congress passes bills and the President signs them into law, not the Supreme Court. They can over turn laws they feel are unconstitutional or tweek them but they certainly don't make laws on their own.
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents...."

"...Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act."--- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

Go drool somewhere else.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#2034 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight. To the gun lobby, the Second Amendment is all rights and no regulation. One important fact that is (conveniently) never mentioned by the gunloons, is that we’ve always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.
"The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them."

PROVE IT - show those "laws". The one you did mention was for those >enrolled< in the MILITIA.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms exists APART from the "militia". It is a right that PREEXISTED the Constitution.

"29. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances [Amendments to the const. art. 1.[Pg. 72]

"30. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [Amend to const. art 2] ib

- Laws of The United States of America, From The 4th Of March, 1789, To The 4th Of March, 1815, Including The Constitution Of The United States, The Old Act of Confederation, Treaties, And Many Other Valuable Ordinances And Documents; WithCopious Notes And References. Arranged And Published Under The Authority Of An Act of Congress. In Five Volumes. Vol. V. Published By John Bioren And W. John Duane, Philidelphia, And R.C. Weightman, Washington City. 1815.

Does any one see "militia" in that law? NO, you most certainly do NOT. Does everyone see "shall NOT be infringed" in that law? YES, you most certainly DO.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#2035 May 23, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a reason for that! It's the liberal propaganda attempting to conceal the truth. Why, if it is illegal to become POTUS unless one is a natural born US Citizen, would the investigation into Obama's Citizenship be put off until after the election?
And that's been the right wing extremist claim... minus the proof.

The game you claim non cons are doing IS what you're playing.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#2036 May 23, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that little comment REALLY got under the skin of you Liberals! Lmao!
lol! It's no different than shouting at the top of your lungs that Obama is Muslim.

You people have to create and develop an image of non cons to make your philosophy work. Otherwise the house of cards just falls apart.

Sorry... I just can't stop laughing!
Louiston

Omaha, NE

#2037 May 23, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>And that's been the right wing extremist claim... minus the proof.
The game you claim non cons are doing IS what you're playing.
More fodder from a mental eunuch.
Louiston

Omaha, NE

#2038 May 23, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>And yet, the birther effort doesn't go away. Or the rhetoric of Obama being Muslim.
Some people just won't let lies die.
...or that Bush stole the election.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#2039 May 23, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>You know? That right wing propaganda of non cons wanting to take away guns?
That's just a hoot!
And it's still being shoveled by cons!
amazing.....
Why would we even think that?

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them…. Mr. and Mrs. American turn em all in. I would have done it."

Sen Diane Feinstein, 60 Minutes (1995)
spocko

Oakland, CA

#2040 May 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them."
PROVE IT - show those "laws". The one you did mention was for those >enrolled< in the MILITIA.
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms exists APART from the "militia". It is a right that PREEXISTED the Constitution.
"29. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances [Amendments to the const. art. 1.[Pg. 72]
"30. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [Amend to const. art 2] ib
- Laws of The United States of America, From The 4th Of March, 1789, To The 4th Of March, 1815, Including The Constitution Of The United States, The Old Act of Confederation, Treaties, And Many Other Valuable Ordinances And Documents; WithCopious Notes And References. Arranged And Published Under The Authority Of An Act of Congress. In Five Volumes. Vol. V. Published By John Bioren And W. John Duane, Philidelphia, And R.C. Weightman, Washington City. 1815.
Does any one see "militia" in that law? NO, you most certainly do NOT. Does everyone see "shall NOT be infringed" in that law? YES, you most certainly DO.
You clearly have no idea what the second amendment is really all about, why it's there, what it means, the original intent of the Framers when they wrote it, or even what the words in the amendment actually mean ... you think you know, but you don't. All of you gunloons are completely wrong. You clearly have no idea what you are posting about and are too friggen lazy to find out (copy and paste). You would be surprised to learn that in the first 224 years of the existence of the second amendment, the constitution it's part of, and the Supreme Court the constitution created, in every case, every Supreme Court in those 224 years without exception, when having to rule on whether the second amendment conferred an individual right to own a gun, the majority ruled it did not. In every case. For 224 years.
The reason every Supreme Court in 224 years ruled that the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun, is because there is absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt, that the purpose of the second amendment, the intent of those who created it, its very reason for existence, had nothing to do with someone's right to own a gun. And the true meaning of the words in the second amendment, for those who understand the words, reflect that.
While there is a mountain of proof that the second amendment's existence and purpose had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun, and the true meaning of the amendment was not to confer any such right, you only have to know two facts about the second amendment to understand that.
Well

York, PA

#2042 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly have no idea what the second amendment is really all about, why it's there, what it means, the original intent of the Framers when they wrote it, or even what the words in the amendment actually mean ... you think you know, but you don't. All of you gunloons are completely wrong. You clearly have no idea what you are posting about and are too friggen lazy to find out (copy and paste). You would be surprised to learn that in the first 224 years of the existence of the second amendment, the constitution it's part of, and the Supreme Court the constitution created, in every case, every Supreme Court in those 224 years without exception, when having to rule on whether the second amendment conferred an individual right to own a gun, the majority ruled it did not. In every case. For 224 years.
The reason every Supreme Court in 224 years ruled that the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun, is because there is absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt, that the purpose of the second amendment, the intent of those who created it, its very reason for existence, had nothing to do with someone's right to own a gun. And the true meaning of the words in the second amendment, for those who understand the words, reflect that.
While there is a mountain of proof that the second amendment's existence and purpose had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun, and the true meaning of the amendment was not to confer any such right, you only have to know two facts about the second amendment to understand that.
You have convinced me. I have seen the light and completely agree - there is no individual right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd AOA. In fact let's repeal the 2nd and end the argument.

I will just keep my firearms under the 9th AOA - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#2043 May 23, 2013
Louiston wrote:
<quoted text>...or that Bush stole the election.
lol! No. He was handed it. We do know he lost the popular vote, though!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 7 min Chilli J 1,615
News Democrats to push for universal background chec... Aug 26 payme 4
News Melania Trump will address immigration controve... Aug 23 JohnInLa 218
News George Soros, Other Democratic Megadonors Plowi... Aug 21 Heath Ledger Suic... 2
News New Dating Site Aims to Pair Concealed Carry Si... Aug 21 RobertM 1
News Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair... Aug 20 lorr d 4
News In Several States, Trump's Poll Monitors May Be... Aug 17 Marauder 9
More from around the web