NRA Claims Victory in a High-Profile Loss

Mr. Lillis, thanks for writing on this issue.

As you correctly point out, most of the “serious” criticism leveled against the Thune amendment has regarded the notion of a usurpation of states “rights.” I'd like to offer some information for you and your readers to consider, and describe arguments why I think the states' “rights” issue is a bogus one when considering the expansion of enumerated rights.

First, a technicality, but one that points toward a widespread misunderstanding of the government, the people, and relationships between the two entities. People inherently possess rights, while states and other governments have enumerated powers. Often (as is the case in the US), the government's powers are established by the people – government is an extension of the people. More specifically, the powers of governments are delegated via the people in the form of written constitutions (generally binding law, with provisions to carefully change the law). Moreover, these constitutions often (as is the case in the US) also outline certain rights of the people, the exercise of which is outside the scope of the government's powers. In other words, people are the ultimate sovereigns, not the government, and the people have set certain of their rights outside of the scope of government power. So, that said, they are arguing that the Thune amendment usurps states' enumerated power to regulate the people's right to bear arms. As a matter of fact, they are not arguing that states possess “rights” by which they may regulate arms. You are not, because states have no such rights.

Second, and quite arguably, the government's power to regulate the right of the people to bear arms is very limited. It's limited by the constitution, wherein is guaranteed that the right shall not be infringed. Incorporation notwithstanding, states such as New York or New Jersey (who issue carry licenses on a discriminatory basis) are already treading thin ice by denying their citizens the right to bear arms. Based on this, states arguably have little power to infringe the right to bear arms. They certainly have no “right” to infringe the rights of the people. The reason for that is because the Bill of Rights placed these liberties outside the scope of government's power.

Third, and most importantly, the function of the government is, first and foremost, to protect the rights and liberties of the people who established those very governments. In other words, they have the argument backwards. In effect, they are arguing that Thune's measure denies the “right” of states to deny people of specifically enumerated rights … but that is absurd on its face. Another way of looking at it (the constitutionally correct way) is that Thune's measure is designed to protect the rights of the people from infringement by state governments. That is what the Bill of Rights was designed to do, and that is what the 14th amendment was enacted to ensure.

I am a strong supporter of states' powers that come into play outside the scope of Congress' enumerated powers (Article 1, Section 8). In fact, state power and autonomy is one of the factors that makes our Republic strong … that makes us a constitutional Republic. But Thune's measure cannot be criticized as a measure that usurps states' powers … simply because the powers to regulate the right at issue … the bearing of arms … do not exist. They are inalienable rights of the people, protected by the Bill of Rights against the federal government, and by the 14th amendment against the states.

That Senators can even get traction with those states' “rights” arguments is testament to the pathetic level of understanding we Americans (including Senators!) have about our very own law, and system of government, and how We the People relate to that law and government.

The NRA sucks!!! Way too many guns in America.

I live in Florida , I carry a gun for protection. Florida is one state where occupied burglaries and murder rates have gone down due to the mear fact a criminal knows chances of getting shot by a potiential victim are real good. I would'nt dream of traveling unarmed, to many freaks out there. I dont go to the grocery store unarmed. Every American should have the right to defend theirself, armed if they wish. I will defend myself and my family. And if guns are ever outlawed, I will be an outlaw!

The NRA has such sway because they command a HUGE voting block….if you want to stop the NRA, try killing the millions of american citizens who pay money to the NRA for the very purpose of lobbying for gun rights….
A congress man or woman's only reason to vote with the NRA is that a large portion of his or her CONSTITUENTS ARE NRA SUPPORTERS!!!!

if you think there are to many guns in america,then maybe you shouls leave,im guessing your probably only 2nd generation at best american if at all.

My family were Irish immigrants many generations ago. Why would I leave America? I am entitled to my opinion. Typical remark from a gun toting NRA member. I don't like guns and feel it is ok for those who want to bear arms to do so, but not AK47's or automatic killing machines. We need to have better control on who gets their hands on them such as gang bangers and thugs.

So if anyone disagrees with you, they should leave your blessed country while you set there on your porch, stroking a shotgun, “davd?”

And on their way out, you're questioning how long they've been here? The birthers are all waiting for you on another thread, doofus.

America has this thing called free speech. You probably didn't hear about it because all that time spent at the shootin' range has blown out your eardrums.

Don't tell others to leave the country when you could just take your gun and hike all the way up the Appalachian trail until you get to Alaska. When you get there, swim for Russia and take Palin with you.

Gun nuts are the worst “patriots” out there.

Not that I doubt you, but can you post a link to the decreased murder rates and occupied burglaries in Florida that you're referring to?

Thanks.

You're entitled to your own argument, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Your entire argument (likely lifted from a gun-rights website without attribution) rests on a misreading of the Tenth Amendment and mischaracterization of the enumerated powers doctrine. You slyly call your mischaracterization a “technicality.”

But your post's conclusion follows from its (incorrect) premise, so that's something.

Bottom line, we know the Republicans call them “rights” when they want to do something and “enumerated powers” when they want to say someone else shouldn't get to do something.

In my opinion unrealisic gun control laws will not deter the criminal from having guns but limit the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their family.
Due the fact lobyist have so much sway with OUR politicians I am forced to join NRA to be a part of the political system I abhor.
As a sixty eight year old AMERICAN I detest a goverment that has strayed from it purpose to protect it's citizens that I must go to such measures to protect my family and myself.
By the way, I am for change if it to make things better.
I also think the ability to attach a repulsive law to a justifiable law is an action that needs to be examined.

Stephenperry:

Your condescention is unwarranted. Those are my ideas, lifted from no one. Explain to me then the mischaracterization … rights are of people, powers are of governments. What is the incorrect premise?

Not that it matters, but I am not a Republican. I don't care what Republicans do … our government is of the people, and as such, no governmental body has rights. If you will replace ad hominem argumentation with substantive, we might get somewhere.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO GOOD OLD COMMON SENSE?

First of all let me say that I am for state rights, as well as gun owners rights. But, simple common sense tells me that we should not go back to the days of the old wild west. Arizona however, just passed a bill to allow concealed weapons in bars.

I think that most everyone is aware of the fact that a vast majority of arguments, fist fights, and other disturbances take place in bars and night clubs where alcohol is served! Even in the old west, many saloons required checking your gun at the door. You do not have to be very smart to figure out why.

There is hardly a night goes by in the U.S. that a disturbance in a bar or club does not happen in most states. We all know that alcohol affects a persons judgement. On these same nights, law enforcement officers lock up litterly hundreds of people for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of acohol. Is there a double standard here?

A gun never killed anybody, just like a vehicle never killed anybody. People kill people! But mix them with alcohol and they can become very dangerous!

But now in Arizona it is lawful to drink and carry a deadly concealed weapon. Even into a bar or night club. It comes as no surprise that a majority of non-accidental gun deaths are alcohol related. I seriously wonder what polititians were drinking when they passed this bill?

I was neither condescending nor resorting to ad hominem attacks. I never said a thing about you personally or about your intelligence or lack thereof; I merely took issue with the ideas you expressed.

Since you obviously don't understand what ad hominem means I am not surprised you don't understand the Tenth Amendment.

I will try to explain again what I already told you, but slower this time.

The flaw in your argument is that you have eviscerated the Tenth Amendment by gutting what “enumerated powers” means, and then proceeding from that false premise to a conclusion that meets itself in a perfect circle of reasoning.

Look closer at the text of the Amendment and you'll see that the Federal government can only do what the Constitution specifically allows it to do, while States can do anything that isn't forbidden. World of difference between those two things.

Even more simply, you make out this non-existent hierarchical difference between a “right” and a “power,” when in fact the State's power is often a lot more significant than your right. States have the power to put people to death, for instance. Or to decide to award tort damages into the trillions of dollars.

But anyway, if you gut what it means for a State to have an enumerated power (that is, one not expressly forbidden to it), then it is easy to get to your conclusion.

Hope that helps, and note again that I didn't make any ad hominem attacks. Sorry if your feelings get hurt when people tell you that you made an error. I'm sure you are making a good faith effort to discuss an intellectually complex issue. I had the benefit of law school; you may or may not have had that experience, but regardless I don't fault anyone for making a good faith effort and didn't intend to do so to you. Best.

Oh, another thing, Carl… You flatly assert that the states “have no such rights” to regulate arms in any way. That goes far beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court said.

No Supreme Court Justice went as far as what you said, even in dicta. The reason they did not is that they each recognize that all states have a legitimate and hundreds of years old compelling interest in anything to do with the states' “police power.”

So your analysis would need to take that recognized fact into account. And it would never end up at the conclusion where it ends up, if you actually limited yourself to law handed down from the Court and the text of the Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights.

Hope I didn't offend you here, either.

Well, sir, at this point I will disagree with one of your claims. You baselessly accused me of plagiarism, and characterized me as being “sly.” That's indeed ad hominem, and not the way to begin a meaningful discussion. You further condescend by suggesting I am making a “good faith effort” to discuss something intellectually complicated, while claiming you had the benefit of law school and by that implying you know better than I do. That may be true. But you come across as arrogant, and it's difficult to engage arguments coupled with arrogance. My feelings are not hurt when I am told I have made an error, and in fact, that is how I learn.

I understand that the federal government has powers enumerated, and grant your point that states have authorities not prohibited. Part of my point above is that I feel states have no constitutional authority to infringe the right to bear arms, as this was made clear by the 14th amendment. While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the scope of the 14A as it relates to the right to arms, it doesn't change the fact that I believe the command “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” to mean what it says. It says what it says … I find it interesting and a bit silly that as a matter of law, the Supreme Court has to confirm what the constitution states before it has legal effect.

DONDINA-
It is most ABSOLUTELY NOT legal to drink and carry a concealed weapon in Arizona…and all weapons are deadly, that's what makes them weapons!
Common Sense indeed!
As soon as a concealed carry owner drinks while carrying, he or she is breaking the law….
SO, if sober concealed carry owners enter a bar and start a fight, there is a good chance he or she should never have gotten the license in the first place….and i'm willing to bet, based on the statistics, that sober concealed carry owners don't start fights.
Now while at the establishment, some drunk may start a fight with a concealed carry owner, but that is a risk that the concealed carry owner is taking by carrying in a place where drunken behavior is prevalent.
The purpose of carrying is for protection of you and your family and only you and your family, it is not to rescue other people….now you may choose to do this, but it is not WHY you should be carrying.

So, if you are for gun owner rights as you claim you are, then you are inherently for concealed carry wherever crime can happen….and crime, as you noted, can most assuredly occur at a bar, night club, or other less scrupulous business…

Not to mention, everyone was able to carry in the wild west…no questions asked….now-a-says, we verify carry owner's criminal history. These people can and should be allowed to carry anywhere they choose, as crime doesn't stop just because you enter a park, bar, daycare, etc…
And if a not licensed gun owner chooses to carry his or her gun into a bar and drink and use that gun, what is to stop them???? Your laws against doing it? Foolish.

Why do you think people in the old west kept hidden guns even after giving up their main weapons at the door….cause they knew any other person in there could be doing the same damn thing and without a gun, you are/were a sitting duck.

to both of you, our government was never set up to be one of the people, it was set up to be one of laws. We call this a republic, the only government form that provides for laws to rule the land instead of a majority opinion, as a democracy allows. I prefer my old constitution and its set of God's laws for men to any democratic concept of what America should be. Democracy is guided by emotion, Republics are guided by laws.

Patrick, just to verify, can you explain how the ak-47s that american civilians are currently allowed to own function……

….Hint::they aren't automatic and they shoot a cartridge far less powerful than the cartridges that are used in the most popular bolt-action hunting rifles today.

While i respect you not being a gun owner and thank you for your support of gun rights, I implore you to educate yourself before you choose to ban a group of weaponry that employs the same technology as a Ruger 10/22 rifle simply based on evil looks.

SURE THEY DO….IN A RETARDED REPUBLICAN UNIVERSE UP IS DOWN DOWN IS UP WET IS DRY AND GETTING SOME FROM FROM A HO AT C STREET IS NOT SEX

Not just in Florida any where that allows good people to carry guns. There is tons data to prove so. Just research it on the internet. The places with CCW have less violent crime. It has been proven time and time again.

Absolutley!! Take the guns away from the good people trying to defend them selves from the thugs and gangsters who wont give two craps about what gun laws get passed. Thugs and Gansters take pride on breaking the law and aquiring weapons illegally which will happen whether there are strict gun laws or not. Goods citizens take pride in respecting the law and abiding by it, which is exaclty why good citizens and not thugs and gansters will disarm them selves according to the law. Where does that leave the good people? I may as well just say ok man, here you go, take my wife and child, and do what you will with them. Alot of people will not realize the importance to the right of self defense until they have had thier lives detroyed but a violent criminal. I for one will stand by and watch my wife or child get violently attacked while I wait for the police to get there because its the politically correct thing to do.

The NRA IS NOT a republican civil rights group, they are a NON-PARTISAN civil rights group….
I'm a democrat who believes in the constitution. I believe in self-defense and I believe abortion is murder…I am against the Patriot Act and against torture of detainees….I am for the war against terror but don't support every aspect of what goes on there. These aren't politically ideological talking points, these are issues that deal with the LAW. Before you go grouping the NRA with a political group(and grouping those that choose to abide by the Constitution as 'RETARDED REPUBLICANs) consider that all they do is lobby for the rights of gun owners as set forth in the CONSTITUTION, not for a race, creed, or other purpose as the civil rights groups such as the ACLU who lobby on based on color or the AARP who lobby based on age….the NRA lobbies for gun rights to all citizens as our Constitution guarantees.

Ignorant!

“I find it interesting and a bit silly that” you don't understand, apparently, that until last year no case has ever construed the 2nd Amendment, and until a Supreme Court case says the states don't have the police power to regulate arms at ALL, your argument is just a lot of puff. If you don't like the way it works, get the Constitution and our entire system of jurisprudence changed.

The Constitution does not say you get to carry guns into a children's playground. It talks about a regulated militia and says you get to bear arms. Not in those words, of course. It uses funky words. That's why a Court has to construe what the words mean. No one says it means what you argue above.

The Supreme Court DID construe the 2nd Amendment last year, and it had an opportunity to say what you've said above. The Court did not go nearly as far.

Either you're brilliant and they all missed it, or you're talking about the world as you would like it to be instead of what it is. States have the police power to regulate arms. They do it everywhere, in all 50 states. The only law that was challenged was in D.C., and it was done for political reasons because the facts of the case were particularly likely to get national notice.

I don't know of any other pending cases that are likely to address the issue.

I'm not responsible for your hurt feelings. I didn't condescend. But I'm tempted to now.

WHY do you think you need an AK-47? Are there hordes of Iranians swarming over your neighborhood in a human wave attack? Does your M-16 get jammed at the shooting range? No rabbits will get close enough for your 12-gauge to work?

There's no legitimate reason for any civilian American who's not a paramilitary freak to have an assault weapon. NONE.

I hope your gun nut head is exploding right now. But before it does, please provide one quasi-legitimate reason why you need that category of weapon.

Your argument belies the falsity of the argument itself. If other weapons have the same technology and/or are more powerful, then what do you need an assault rifle for?

karlthomas, it's not clear to me what you're saying. Are you agreeing with DONDINA that Arizona allows concealed carry into bars, but the concealed carrier has to avoid drinking in said bars?

What is that, the Designated Shooter? What idiocy. Adding a gun to a place where frustrated, angry people get drunk is as stupid as allowing a concealed gun to be carried onto a playground. There's no reason for that.

You don't fool anyone. No one needs to do this to protect themselves. Gun rights lobbyists just shower politicians with cash so that the 2nd Amendment can be expanded and never contracted, no matter how ludicrous the expansion. Why not apply for the right to carry a concealed weapon into church? I bet you're prepared to argue for that too?

I'm glad you're writing where people can keep track of you. Stay the hell out of my bars and my community's playgrounds. Or you're likely to get punched out by a mom or dad who doesn't want gun nuts around their kids.

It's not the Wild West anymore. There was no police force out in the Wild West.

We are much better off having a police force than a band of hyper-armed vigilantes.

“And if a not licensed gun owner chooses to carry….” So you admit that you gun nuts don't care what the law is? You think the law is YOU because of what you have in your cute lil fanny pack? Get a grip. You people are as bad as the birthers.

If you think the NRA is bi-partisan, that's almost as dumb as thinking the NRA is a civil rights group.

“I'm a democrat who believes in the constitution.” No. You may say you're a Democrat. But you're a single-issue voter if you're a Democrat who believes in anything the NRA says or promotes, and the Democrats don't want to be in the thrall of the gun lobby. Look what it did for the Republican party.

If you actually believed in the Constitution you wouldn't be arguing about concealed-carry laws. The states have the police power to protect the citizenry, including by the use of common sense restrictions on rights. You have the right to drive a car, provided you get a license and provided you obey the laws of the road. You have a Constitutional right to free speech, but even that is limited? Why, other than your raving lunacy and itchy trigger finger, should guns be different?

I don't know what your constitution says. But mine is the same one that was written by the founders of the U.S.A. and it most certainly does not purport to be a “set of God's laws.”

We have a little thing called Separation of Church and State. And our Founding Fathers were Deists (who believed God has little to nothing to do with governing our lives on Earth – Jefferson, Paine, Adams, Washington, and Madison), Agnostics (Ben Franklin is the most famous example), or outright Atheists.

The Founding Fathers just crossed an ocean to get away from the tyranny and oppression that results when God gets into government through the hands of men.

And now hundreds of years later, you're trying to sneak God in through the back door. The irony is there's no way in the world that God would approve of a law that permits you to carry an AK-47 onto a playground under your gun nut trench coat.

I got news for you, Rambo. We have a military and a police force. Go back to shooting tin cans in the back pasture. We don't need your heroism anywhere except in Appalachia. I hear squirrel is good eating. I like Mike Huckabee. Maybe you can send him some bullet-riddled squirrels and call that your civic duty?

None of what you just said was based on any set of laws this country was founded on.
The only set of laws I believe in is the American Constitution. It was set up to have ABSOLUTELY no restrictions on the RIGHTS outlined in the document unless exercising those rights violated someone else's rights to LL&P. The document is very straightforward in protecting these rights and very careful to simply acknowledge the existence of the rights, not to proclaim that these rights can be GIVEN.
SO, it makes sense that someone who fails to understand this simple aspect of our founding would in turn acknowledge a RIGHT to DRIVE A CAR??!!!
Our founders acknowledged that the rights outlined in the Constitution were indeed fundamental to the human fabric, as no government can stop a person from expressing themselves, protecting themselves, or force them to tell their deepest secrets. You always maintain INDIVIDUAL access to these very fundamental rights.
Quite true, a gevernment can attempt to put restrictions on these rights, but no amount of restrictions can ever stop someone from having these rights….this is what makes them fundamental to human society.

Because the founders realized that a government could restrict the means to self defense, the SUPPLEMENTAL RIGHT of individual firearm ownership was PERMITTED, as any government that has access to their own weaponry while not permitting the citizenry to have access to guns at ALL TIMES could turn into a tyrannical government very easily. YOUR assertion that the citizenry shouldn't have guns because the police force has them and can protect us is the exact reason the founding fathers saw it necessary to ensure that the individual citizen had access to weapons.
Police forces in many developing countries have used their access to firearms to control the citizenry. The success of their tyranny relies on the submissiveness of the population. Assuming that this scenario will somehow subside because we are a so called 'civilized country' is absurd, as the thirst for power is also something woven into the human fabric.
You and your kind place faith in group rights and government power while me and my constitution and the founding fathers place our faith on the individual and his or her rights. Our governments are vastly different.

Your emotion drives your policy making. Unlike our founding fathers who only had other country's failures to explore and learn from, you have over 200 years of American successes to look at and yet you still aim to remove the INDIVIDUAL right.
I might add that the police power too protect the citizenry has failed to make an early appearance to damn near 100% of the crimes committed in this country. They arrive only after being alerted to the happening of a crime. Why you believe you can restrict me from having the ability to protect myself simply so you can FEEL safer thinking the police will arrive to protect you is beyond me. Restricting my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS based on your FEAR AND EMOTION….your are the worst type of democrat, one who want a living Constitution adapted to the 21st century, getting rid of 'out-dated' aspects and including new rights.
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS PROMOTE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

On another note, the republican party has collapsed due to their GROUP failure. They promote fiscal responsibility while spending absurd amounts of money on projects that are unconstitutional, they allow, if not condone, the torture of other humans(no matter what crime the person has committed, if it can't be proven unequivocally, then release them, if EVIDENCE proves it the crime to have been perpetrated, then humane punishment is the prescription, but NEVER is torture ok.
The republican party began making what used to be their bread & butter into punch lines. Corruption at all levels runs rampant when you promote individual responsibility and never take responsibility. While we watched the GOP deal with this over a decade and a half before truly falling apart, we are watching the current set of democrats destroy themselves with identity politics and bickering over group rights.
You call me a single-issue voter….I then ask you to go ahead and check out the NRA's ranking of our country's legislators…..are these pro-gun democrats single-issue legislators, or are you standing firmly to the left of OUR aisle. Us democrats aren't all the same…we are INDIVIDUALS. Some of us grew up appreciating our freedoms and learning the importance of our Constitution. We grew up having respect for what a firearm can do. That respect and acknowledgment of the weapon as a potential evil in the hands of anyone but yourself, including your trusted police forces, is why even in this 'civilized' era we still promote INDIVIDUAL rights to self defense and we still acknowledge the INDIVIDUAL access to the INDIVIDUAL tools necessary for the exercise of that right!

Yes, as stated earlier, you my dear fellow democrat, are anti-constitution and pro-emotional agenda. You and your kind are what will drive the democratic party out of power….and i'm perfectly fine with that! The GOP failed and they got booted out. If they restructure properly, they will pull voters back to the polls for them. If both parties continue in the direction way from INDIVIDUAL rights and CONSTITUTIONAL doctrine, we can guarantee a collapse of America as it was set up to be. In my opinion, a failure of the the anti-american ideals you hold dear would be the greatest thing for america. So long as pro-individual rights and pro-constitution continue to thrive, i don't care what name my political party chooses to go by. Unlike you, I am not emotionally tied to a party that won't acknowledge self-defense as an individual FUNDAMENTAL right, much less NOT INFRINGE my CONSTITUTIONAL right to keep and bear arms.

That makes two ignorant posters i've had the opportunity to deal with…and one anti-american masquerading as a democrat!

It is absolutely is still the wild west! The same corruption that prevailed during these early days of our country still permeate our society.
And there absolutely were police forces in the wild west, and just as there are now, they are helpless to stop a crime when they don't know where it will happen.
VIGILANTES?! you assert we have no right to self defense with this statement!
“And if a not licensed gun owner chooses to carry….”….NO, I acknowledge that NOTHING can stop an individual from doing what he or she chooses. ANY person can take any number of weapons and use it ANYWHERE. In your scenario, the highly medicated criminal opens fire with a gun in a mall…your security guards are unarmed and your police are more than five minutes away….they may or may not enter the building immediately upon arrival, for THEIR OWN SAFETY. In your scenario, you are dead.
In my scenario, the crazy individual who poses a danger to my PERSONAL HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE by using a gun improperly is faced with several armed citizens who know that if they use their weapons improperly they will be in deep shit.
This individual responsibility is what sets law-abiding citizens apart from criminals….its what sets my pro-individual and pro-constitution agenda apart from your anti-american agenda.

The LAW is above me. The law is not written by politicians…the law is written into the human fabric. NO WHERE in nature do you see helpless prey just laying down and permitting their attacker to kill them. You see them run, fight, struggle to survive. Humans are lucky enough to have the ability to think….to use weapons to fight off attackers and to make personal and fully individual assessments of what is necessary for personal survival.
I'm perplexed on why you want to remove my right to self-protection when you have absolutely no power to remove the ability of criminals to commit acts of violence….
I suppose its you emotion doing the thinking for you instead of a practical and common sense approach to a very primitive issue.
Gun nuts?! I guess we are…if you hate guns, i get why your scared; there are a freaking ton of us in your safe little county…not a one of us has ever used our guns for evil.
I suppose you are an abortion nut…..cool…murder for convenience seems much better than self-defense…ha

Like you said, “Adding a gun to a place where frustrated, angry people get drunk is as stupid as allowing a concealed gun to be carried onto a playground.”

I agree, a bar or restaurant with a bunch of drunks seems downright dangerous…I can't imagine what would happen if a drunk without a concealed license pulled a gun in there…i'd imagine everyone would sit and wait quietly for the police to arrive….lol
your funny….

–”Stay the hell out of my bars and my community's playgrounds. Or you're likely to get punched out by a mom or dad who doesn't want gun nuts around their kids.”

hmmmm, i laugh that you are so naive to think that you don't already walk around every day next to concealed carry owners……and i laugh at your example of violent parents…seems like a perfect example of why i WOULD carry a gun!
There is not a state in this country, including the two states where concealed carry is not allowed, where there aren't responsible individuals choosing to carry a gun for personal protection. I am absolutely against carrying in the places WE haven't been permitted to carry yet, but just as I recognize criminals will carry in those places either way, I recognize that some people will view their FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to self-defense as more important than the laws that restrict their right to protect themselves from those that would do violence.

You do realize that the AK47 available in the UNITED STATES is semi-automatic? This means that it is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT than the guns that americans have been using for over 100 years! ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!

There is nothing assaulting about the civilian AK-47. It does not spray bullets, it shoots the same caliber as several mid-level hunting rifles….the cartridge is just sufficient to knock down mid-level game.
You are once again drawing conclusions devoid of fact…wholly based on emotion. You fear the look of the AK because of its connotation as being a military rifle that is used to kill human. You completely over-look the fact that the civilian AK47 only COSMETICALLY resembles the military version and is no different than any other mid-level rifle.
This simple FACT is why I refuse to jump on the bandwagon to ban the civilian AK47.
I don't own one, never wanted one, see no use for the thing, it is not practical for anything apart from fun, sport, novelty, and self-defense. I can get all those things out of the guns i currently own and without having to deal with the deficiencies of the ak47. It is not accurate, not designed for a scope(though innovation has led to the ability to add optics), and most usually not made in the United States. I do not want an AK47!!!!!!!!!!!

That being said, it is absolutely NO DIFFERENT from any of my other guns! It looks different….those cosmetic features that make you fear the gun don't do a thing to make it more deadly. And if you can ban a semi-automatic based on looks alone, you and your emotions won't take long before you come for my other guns.
I hate to have to keep repeating myself, but you must stop relying on emotion to forge your perceptions. A practical approach will help you see that no one has a NEED for what you call an assault rifle….but because the part of it that makes you label it ASSAULT RIFLE is simply cosmetic, that your stipulation that anything not NECESSARY be banned permits me to remove your access to a car that goes faster than 70 miles per hour. It permits me to remove your right to design your house with structurally sound but visually thin stone columns….because it makes me FEEL safer knowing it can't hurt anyone…I know, absurd right?! Ignorant again…

Oh it most certainly does!!!!! While it does not maintain that these rights came from any God in particular, it most certainly asserts that these rights are INALIENABLE.
Now how can inalienable rights be invented by humans?! Perplexing! If humans had the power to create these rights then they most certainly have the power to remove them….and this is not the case..these rights were simply ACKNOWLEDGED as EXISTING. Now i don't care who you give accolades to for the existence of these rights, mother nature, a power greater than you and I, or buddah, but one thing is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, these rights do exist and they were not created by humans.
Interestingly, this assertion is not a gun issue at all….because gun ownership is not inalienable. Self-defense very much is.

Your image of gun owners is emotional…”gun nut trench coat” of course we have concluded that you are driven by emotion and lack a thought process that allows for practical and concise conclusions based on fact.

You misunderstand what “inalienable” means. The definition, “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred,” holds no particular religious connotation, thus the innocuous term 'creator.'

I think you misunderstand my assertion while simultaneously affirming my position! While i believe they come from God, that god can be different for any person, but this is trivial…the important distinction is that something that is “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred” can not be invented by man!
I have no religious intent….i simply imply that the existence of these rights being above man's hand to alientate surrender or transfer permits only one conclusion, that they simply exist…now you can have them applied to the world of man by whatever means you feel appropriate, I will continue to stick to an authority greater than myself..God. Non-religious…it can be everyones god….i mean, either way, we all are bound by nature's law….

The NRA is so powerful that it is time to get creative. Fine, they claim guns will bring down crime. Put their claims where their mouths are. Any gun rights extension should test these claims and sunset the laws if the claims prove untrue. If crime does not go down in the National Parks or in DC, or worse goes up, then the restrictions should return. It may be the NRA can't be stopped but these laws should at least have to proves their claims to stay in force.

It is another matter when the Federal government starts forcing some states to accept the lowest common denominator of other states. A Federal law is one thing, but this law would force the people of one state to accept unaccountable unelected legislatures of another state, at least by them, to make their laws.