The founders approved of the citizens having the standard miliatary rifle of the day so that citizen infantry would be equally armed to any opposing tyrannical forces - foreign or domestic. The colonialists even had their own cannon! What's more clear than "shall not be infringed"?

BTW I'll bet you wear a "well regulated" watch, don't you?

Jacob, you know not of what you speak. There is no difference in "power" between the rifles pictured and your average hunting rifle. The differences are cosmetic. A hunting rifle firing 7mm remington magnum is more "powerful" than an AK clone firing 7.62x39mm. The bullet will go farther, hit harder, penetrate deeper, and do more damage. So why is one ugly AK more "powerful" than a hunting or target rifle?

As for "only criminals" need these "high powered" rifles.... bull. Even if you were right that they were somehow more powerful, why would only criminals need them? Criminals use black ski masks, so do only criminals need them? Do only race car drivers need cars that can go faster than 30mph? Do you "need" a 70 inch screen TV?

Your argument only shows your ignorance as to the issues at stake. Please educate yourself before you embarrass yourself.

RAS, that doesn't even make sense? The point was that the definition of well regulated is ambiguous and has many possible meanings. Your immediate devolution to name calling and insults clearly shows the strength of your argument.

Jrr, isn't the speed with which these guns can fire a difference? My main reason I agree with Jacob is because the speed at which a gun could be fired when the 2nd amendment was drafted versus today. i believe if the founding fathers knew of the weapons that would be carried by the government then they wouldn't have been as concerned with their countrymen owning black powder guns as with the future consequences of citizens with little intelligence in gun ownership owning automatic weapons.

While only criminals may NEED high-powered weapons, the rest of us WANT them for our own sporting enjoyment. I could go on to say that only professional drivers NEED cars that can go 200 mph, are we going to outlaw those too? Cars kill just as many people as guns do.

Now, all that being said, I see no harm in the rule the ATF agency wastrying to push through. It's highly unusual for someone to buy MULTIPLE assault rifles of the same type. If they are doing it for a legal reason, then they have nothing to fear.

As for the basedrum's argument, during the time the Constitution was drafted I'm sure there was someone that came along and said "well, muskets are fine, but do people really need RIFLED barrels?" By your reasoning, we would be limited to owning the weapons of the time the Amendment was put in place. Use some logic before you speak.

First of all the B.S. Hunting stuff is not what the 2nd amendment was written for, it was a check against the possibility of an oppressive and overpowering government. The wisdom of or forefathers was that for America to fall it would be by removing the populace of it's only method of self determination, the one that made her, hence they made for regulated militias. It's sad that the powers that be are edging from these priciples with increasing steps, it shows that America is already eroded and what is most concerning is they appear more focused with Americans expressing their rights to defend her than those that threaten her from the outside.... they can't understand one wondering whos side they are on. These are the same distractions that let 911 slip under their noses.

The Second Amendment is clear enough as it limits the right to bear arms to a well regulated Militia. Conservatives, who are always railing against activist liberal judges said nothing when the conservative majority on the Supreme Court made law from the bench in the Heller decision.

It is unbelievable that people still don't get it regarding these types of weapons. They are not for sport. They are for murdering large numbers of people very quickly and there is absolutely no need for them outside of military use. Our elected officials are in the death grip of the NRA and those of their ilk. One can't even guess how many members of Congress would have to be shot before they would havethe cojones to man up to the NRA. Wayne LaPierre is truly the devil incarnate.

Trying to say the founding fathers had no idea that arms would evolve is ludicrous. You think that they had no knowledge of the evolution of the gun up until the time the second amendment was ratified? Guns started as a stick you held and lit with a hot ember. Slowly over time evolving to match lock, to wheel lock, ending in flint lock and from smooth bore musket to rifled barrels at the time in question. We are talking about men that for the most part were better educated than most are now. Single barrels to start evolving to multiple barrels for more shots. They were well aware of the evolution of the gun and that it would continue to evolve. Let it go ..

Please get your information correct before you "report" your story, First look up the definition for Assault Rifle, semi-auto AK-47 doesnt meet this requirement. The AK-47 is a semi-auto, the ones for sale in the US are not full/selective fire that meets the definition of "Assault Rifle."

Close the damn border to Mexico! Use the military and provide the border patrol with the necessary man power and fire power and funding. Punish the criminals and not the law abiding people of the US. Nothing good comes out of Mexico and us dollars need to be spent in the US not some other damn country on cheap drugs and trinkets! Anything used to commit an assault can be classified as an assault weapon, from a meat tenderizer to a butcher knife! Where do you want to draw the line? Criminals will not follow the law to acquire their weapons, hence more gun laws will not affect the criminals only the American citizens who are trying to exercise their rights to protection and recreation through the right of gun ownership!

One, the supreme court did not make law on the heller decision. The meaning of the word well regulated and what a militia constituted is well documented by our founding fathers. Militia refers to every able man in this country

Two, this idea that the second amendment doesn't apply to modern weapons because the founding fathers had no idea about repeating rifles is ludicrous and dangerous. First, our founding fathers were insightful and some where even inventors, I don't think what we have now was outside the realm of their vision. And more importantly, if you apply that insane logic to the second amendment, you then can apply it to the first, since as you, computers, television, radio, and the internet didn't exist.

Hey Aggregate, if you are going to use that defense then by transitive properties of logic, you would still consider a black man to be worth 3/5's of a white man and be opposed to women voting...

Also, since the 2nd amendment simply says "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," you cannot argue that regulation of firearms would be in violation. For example, if all firearms were banned except for bolt action riffles and .22 cal hand guns, then you would still have the ability to keep and bear arms. Just to set an example.

Here's the problem, if all we get into is a argument over yes or no, then eventually you get a prohibition. Prohibition has never resolved a problem.

What we need to start talking about is how we can better regulate availability to better prevent the abuse of our freedom. Freedom does not come without responsibility.

If I was to suggest anything, it would be to require permits or licenses for purchase, transfer, transportation or use of firearms on public lands. This permitting or licensing would be similar to what's necessary for a concealed weapons permit, perhaps even having endorsement levels similar to a driver's license.

For instance, if you wanted to buy a semi-automatic handgun, you would have to take a short psychological evaluation, not too complex, just trying to identify possible flags. If you were flagged, you would of course be able to take a more thorough exam to appeal. If you wanted to buy an assault riffle, you would have to take the more thorough exam.

The next step of this plan would be to increase the responsibility of firearm ownership by establishing higher standards of control. Barrels would be serialized as well as to be registered ballistically for the riffling patterns and recorded in the federal database. The firearms would then have to be completely registered, all serial numbers and riffling pattern like an automobile. It would then be your responsibility to file sells records upon transfer or report lost or stolen weapons.

The actual licensing of the weapons would of course be fee based to generate revenue. Bullets would also be taxed, just like alcohol or sugar.

Think about it this way. Would any of these idea's infringe upon your right to own and bear arms? Would you suffer upon this idea of regulation? Or would you suffer upon the repeal or amendment to the 2nd?

if the government ever tries to come after our guns which it would seem to be the case here should we not be allowed the same style and types of weapons so we may defend our selves from the tyranny in government that our founding fathers warned us about and that Thomas Jefferson so elegantly wrote and put into our constitution? you know the second amendment. the fact that times have changed and that weapon technology has changed so what. so has every thing else except the meaning of the immortal words to defend ourselves against tyranny in government.

Why do we need another ban? Can't the ATF agents count. John Doe just purchased 16 AK47's. You know we might want to look him up.

D-man1; If it is true that these weapons "are for murdering large numbers of people very quickly and there is absolutely no need for them outside of military use," then it follows that the military is only needed to murder large numbers of people very quickly. Why do you support the military murdering people and what if the military turns against its own people, as as happened many times through-out history?

If weapons cause evil deeds, then all military and government entities need to be disarmed. This won't happen since these weapons are very efficient equalizers and force multipliers. Why should a citizen's life be any less worthy of self-protection than a government agent's life? It's not, and so individuals should have equal rights to the best self-defense weapons.

The government needs to be doing the hard job of bringing the true criminals, those who hurt others, to justice while protecting all the liberties of the citizenry.

Well, so much for the cooperation from the NRA. Ludicrous. The NRA is run by a bunch of fools.

I say keep the second amendment but make the person that buys these long gun responsible for them. That would not hinder a law abiding citizen the right to own guns. Just make him responsible for where it ends up. What is the sense of requiring a back ground check if the person can buy the gun and sell it to a criminal? I say register all gun sales and if that gun is used to commit a crime or murder then hold that buyer responsible unless the gun was reported stolen before hand. There should be a law that if they sell the gun then they have to report it to a gun shop. You have the right to own a car but if that car is used in a robbery and not reported stolen you have a lot of explaining to do. The same should be applied for a gun bought in a gun store that ends up in the hands of criminals.

hey old man, you cannot speak for the opinion the founding fathers would have on current firearms. if their rationale for the 2nd was to protect our country from invading forces, as was the fear back in 1787, then you can reason that our military and emergency services have that covered.

we also have a democracy mechanism to direct our government.

the repeal of the 2nd does not violate the constitution, in fact, it is the way the founding fathers intended it. don't forget that every amendment after the 12th was added after 1795...

we really should get away from all or nothing arguments. if we don't self regulate, we will be regulated... prohibition... see 18th and 21st for an example...

here's a bit of conspiracy theory: i think the gun lobby and nra are only so active because the manufacturers of weapons and ammo would go out of business if inventory wasn't cleared by creating panic.

Sounds like a lot of anti gunners on here for sure. AR's and semi automatic handguns are used for competive matches, hunting, varmint contol,.......so to say they are not for sport is compelte BS. Secondly the US Constitution was put in place by our forefathers to protect the freedoms and liberty of the people immigrating into our country who were tired of being ruled by tyrants. As a law abiding citizen and gun owner i'm fully responsible for the use and control of my firearms and yes there are others in this country that are not responsible and shouldn't own a gun. Unfortuately there were plenty of warning signs noticed by individuals before the tragic event in AZ and it's just another example of nobdoy doing a damn thing about it until it was too late and now we have to deal with the reactive measures. That's the problem with this country. Every time something happens, reactive measures are put in place. Time to get pro-active. The gun didn't commit the crime it was the stupid idiot that people new had mental issues that did it. There's a lot of things in this country that kill and injure people everyday. Does that mean we need to form anti groups against those items to ban and outlaw them? The unfortuante part today is if you let our representatives erode one part of the constitution they can erode the rest of it and then your not free anymore.

The only way an individual or group can fight "tyranny" in America today is through assassination. Guns have been used in this way against Lincoln, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, MLK, Reagan, Gifford. If the Federal Gov't was a tyranny the only way to oppose it would be a civil war and then it could only be done thru well regulated state militias. We did have a Civil War and then too they claimed they were fighting "tyranny." The freedom argument being promoted here, is the Freedom to Assassinate Our Leaders. I don't think that is what our founding fathers meant.

We need to "Think4Ourselves".

I'm Not a crminal and I own several of these types of weapons all legal and never used in any crimes

Don't judge a man by the color of his skin and never judge a weapon by it's shape and the round it fires

You liberal Marxists on this forum need to move to communist China and live, like I did for nine years. But then again, if liberalism really is a mental disorder, living in a communist country might not help to open your eyes to anything. And then again, you might just like it there and decide to stay.

The US Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General missed the obvious question: What if the US guns stores are not a primary source of firearms for the 40-billion dollar (yearly US profits alone) Mexican cartels? Note that the brutal violence in Mexico is committed by cartel paramilitaries - mostly renegade ex-military. And they are armed with machine guns, grenade launchers and RPGs - none of which are sold at US retail stores.

To read more, see: American Hunter Magazine, Feb 2011, page 12

The idea of no one knew there would be semi auto weapons when the 2nd amendment was written and they should be banned is terribly flawed. If this is true how could things like the internet and telphones be covered by the first amendments guarantee of free speech. I believe it to be more likely the idea of a semi auto firearm was more realistic to the founding fathers than the ability to communicate worldwide from your living room.

It is obvious that you believe in the rhetoric of the anti-gun establishment. So I will just deal in the facts here and nothing else. The level of violence in Mexico exists today as a prime example of what can and does occur when the anti-gun establishment disarms a populace as it did in Mexico in 1968. Take away the guns from the citizenry and the criminals and the government are still armed and in some cases are one in the same. As for the type of weapons being used if you took away the guns it would be baseball bats and machetes as it is in Africa in regions were firearms are scarce. Firearms are inanimate objects no different than any other tool. In the right hands they protect and preserve life and are useful tools as such. In a criminals hands they are used to do what a criminal does take what is wanted and commit acts of violence against others. When Canada disarmed the populace the crime rate skyrocketed overnight as the criminals will take advantage of such situations and now those in the Canadian populace whom did not relinquish there firearms are now felons so there is a vast majority of armed law abiding Citizens living North of our border who are felons thanks to the few who think they know what is best for the rest of us as we couldn't possibly know ourselves. You continue with your line of thinking as I can assure should you one day wish you had an AK 47 to defend your family and life from the Crackhead Gang Members who will be roaming your neighborhood streets robbing,raping, pilaging and burning. You probably live with a false sense of security in the belief that your gated community and the local police will protect you. Wakeup smell the stench in the air and realize what time it is as that gated community just tells the criminals were the wealthy victims live and the local police force can't protect themselves much less you. Further than that they are under no lawful obligation to render you protection most especially in the case of large scale emergency or catastrophic event. Check resent supreme court rulings if you don't believe that. The best thing you can do for yourself is go down and buy yourself an Ak47 and ammunition learn to use it and just maybe you might have a fighting chance at saving your family from what is coming to a city such as yours and very likely sooner than you think. Otherwise you can continue your blind thinking and oneday wakeup to your worst nightmare and wish you had taken the time to listen before it was to late. JFK words " We must secure our peace by preparing for War". As for what is occuring in our streets they are a battleground and the war rages on as you sit by blindly unaware of what is going on. As for who I am I've spent the better part of my adult life on the front lines in the military, police and medical service. I believe in the Second Ammendment and The Constitution as you obviously do not. You don't appreciate the freedoms you enjoy because your never had to defend them otherwise you would have a different outlook on what is freedom and what is not, wakeup before its to late !

If the gun lobby, the nra, and all civilian ownership of weapons was done away with, tell me what would stop tyranny from taking over. Without an armed society a ballot box means nothing. As far as personal protection goes, it's everyones personal responsibility to defend themselves and their families. That is unless you carry a concealed cop on your person everywhere you go!

So, the obvious question never asked of the BATFE's mission on the border is this: What if the combined drug cartels - with yearly profits equaling one tenth of the Mexican gross national product - are meshed with another set of global criminal cartels with an equal profit center - ruthless black market arms traders?

To read more, see: American Hunter Magazine, Feb 2011, page 12

the phone or internet is not covered or protected by the constitution. think about that. and if you do feel that way, you should be complaining to your representative and senators about net neutrality.

to help you understand, the constitution only protects your thoughts from the government. if say, newsvine decided your post wasn't what they look for, they can delete it. if you were to say something disagreeable in a non-public place, you can be removed.

Hey Noobs did your parents have any children that survived?

galaxyJ, you should try reading griftopia, see if you can unlock that mind of yours on what is really destroying our country and start to understand how people like Mike Savage and Glen Beck aid them.

docX, calling you a name would be too easy. as far as countries with gun bans, how are the crime rates there? Canada, UK, Japan... and no one has really fought to defend our freedom since 1898. all wars since were economic.

get the homeland security to do its job and close the border at least make it tighter. you break the second amendment this country will fall to the ground.

Here in lies the truth

FACT: "Assualt rifles" DO NOT FIRE quicker than any other semi automatic. A 100 year old six shooter revolver in the hands of a skilled man (you can find this video on youtube) can fire 12 rounds in less than 3 seconds!

The militia is every able bodied male from 17 to 45. That is the definition in US CODE! Google it yourself I've posted it so many times here that it must be annoying to those that have actually read it.

Just google code 311 militia if you care about the facts.

The militia (every able bodied male 17-45) is supposed to be able to repel any attack on the united states, it acts as the first and last military personal for defence of this country. It makes perfect sense, who better to protect our streets than us! We have a personal stake in making sure our neighborhoods can repel an invasion, rather from foreigners, fringe political groups, even those Republican tea partiers that you antis hate. Yes, you rabid democats have the same rights as those rabid "tea baggers" you complain about. You guys seem to fear that the tea partiers and all of us "gun nuts" are going to come and shoot up your home and kill you while you're eating at the local resturant or drinking at your favorite pud. You have the right to arm yourselves to defend against "US".

So the militia is compromised of every one of us, we have the power and authority to repel invaders and even protect ourselves against the nuts within our own country. This is not a bad thing but how are we going to repel anyone if we are "regulated" to carrying baseball bats or inferiour weapons?

FACT: Only about 2,000 people are killed in this country by a rifle of any type. Period. That statistic is readily available by the DOJ and the FBI websites. Look up homicides by weapon type. My numbers aren't perfect but basically its 8,000 by handgun 2,000 by rifle and 6,000 by other means give or take 500 in each category. Only about 5% of homicides in this country are by "Assualt weapons: which DO NOT fire quicker than a semi-automatic hunting rifle which actually typically is more powerful than a ar-15 or a ak-47.

So the whole "assualt rifles" are more dangerous and kill more people are rediculous. A .22 caliber handgun kills more people than any individual rifle.

Furthermore, only about 10-16k people are killed by firearms, less than anytime since 1967/1972 (rates considered) before that more people in both rate and numbers were killed post 1932. People routinely believe that 100,000 people are murdered in this country, that is because you hear about every murder on your local news on average about 4-5 times if you watch the news everyday. If you live in the city that means you believe that number is low if you live in the country you think the number is about 60,000. This has been studied amoungst those that responded with an artificially high responce to a question simular to (i dont have the exact wording) "how many people are murdered each year in the united states".

I get rather perturbed by people whom spit out BS stats and know nothing about guns or firearm technology. They have no idea how easy it is to make a fully automatic illegal gun in your own basement. Making ammo is harder but yet still relatively easy to do. Banning and confescating every single firearm and ammo will do nothing to stop anyone from getting their hands on them. However I need to stop reacting emotionally just because someone is ignorant of the facts so I'm trying to take a different approach.

I understand the mis-conceptions, I'm wondering if the opposing side really wants to know the facts or are just jumping to bans because they just hate guns.. I respect someone that jcan amit they just hate firearms but I have a serious problem when they either lie about the facts or just repeat these "facts" that are manipulated stats and not really facts.

There are 44 states that indicate to at least a degree individual rights to arms. Some actually say "Individual" these states were accepted for statehood after the United States approved their constituions, mostly because that was the understanding of the second amendment at the time anyway. Not for nothing, gun control really came about after slaves were freed, southern states banned firearms for blacks, then made "conceled carry laws" that pretty much were only used against blacks. Had it not been for the racist attitudes of the south these anti-gun laws would not be alive today or at least not as prevelant.

No anti-gun person who is reasonable and intelligent would object to the average rural individual that owns a firearm. Once they met that "red neck hic west virginia inbred" they would change their opinion very very quickly. They would find these people are the first to stop to help you with a flat tire, give you $5 for emergency gas money, pull you out of a fire, and are the most polite people you'd ever meet in america. It is there nature. They don't deal with jerks on a regular basis, you know the impolite people that steal your parking space, bump you on the street and keep walking, steal, or swear. They hold the door for you, they respect everyone until they are rude but yet still do everything in thier power to not be rude back. They would never harm another person without reasonable cause and they pack heat. The antis often are surrounded by rude people, thugs, gangs, and the like. I understand why they don't want those types of people to own a firearm BUT I do not understand why they want to take firearms away from the typical rural polite responsible man that they would want around them if america ever had a series or trully devistaing events like a nuclear attack or natural disaster. Furthermore these "red necks" are the guys you want to be behind the guns if/when they are needed. If someone invaded us would you trust the guy across the hall from your apartment that has never grown a thing other than pot, never fired a firearm, doesn't even know how to even walk in the woods or a country boy that has done all that and knows how to sew you up if you're 100 miles from a hospital AND willing to risk his life to save anyones life?

The country boy wins and I promise that in general no matter what your race, religion or political standing he will still do his duty if you're not a jerk to him and yet maybe still.

To me the bottom line is that cities must clean up and proliferate civility to their neighbors and stop trying to make good people out to be bad. I dont have the stats infromt of me but for crime and murder most of it happens in somthing like 90-95% of cities at a rate much higher than rural areas. Yet the population is not nearly equivalent.

Lets stop being ignorant about whats going on here. It really is a divide between two groups of people. when in reality it should be about how the world we live and how it should be. Certaintly everyone should be able to have a machine gun and we shouldn't have to worry about even one murder because of it. Does that make sense? People should know not to kill and shouldn't actually kill? Am I crazy in thinking this? We need to make it clear that murder is wrong, most people know it but for some reason in the cities people there are not holding this simple idea strongly. We should focus on that. We need to fix that instead of fighting about something that could never stop these people from murdering as no matter what they could get their hands on firearms or another tool to murder or harm.

Lets stop thinking emotionally and start dealing with the real problem, people out there that think it is okay to harm someone for personal gain, pleasure or some delusion. The only reason one should be able to harm another is to protect others from an individual that is doing physical harm to them. These bans would prevent self-defense, defense of others, and the possiblity of american citizens from defending their nation and would not prevent those that lack the sense to know one should not harm others from doing so.

Jacob, I agree with your statement; in my state we had this problem with straw purchases were guns were getting into the wrong hands and innocent children were getting shot; they cracked down severly on these purchases and closed the gun shops who were knowingly allowing this to happen.

Since criminals obviously have them, obviously can get them, then why not let the law abiding, USA Born, tax paying citizens have access to them? Criminals have them ILLEGALLY. which means they didn't walk into MOM and PA Guns and buy it.

Did you know that NON-CITIZENS can and do buy guns every day? All they have to show is 90days residency and ID. You know, the ones that states like CALIFORNIA are giving to ILLEGALS????? Do you see anything wrong with that picture. If they get a state-issued ID in one state, they can take that to any state and trade it in for that one.... So picture this: Pedro swims over, goes to California and gets a student ID, then a state ID and VIOLA!!! He can buy a gun! Take that ID to say...........Michigan......Louisianna or Texas and he can buy all the guns he wants!!!! WOW!!!!!

But Silly me... I got a Concealed Carry permit in Houston. They check my credit, background, mental health history, medical records and ANYTHING ELSE they feel like it because I sign those rights away. I also give up the right to reasonable cause, search and seizure. When they stop me for a traffic violation, they have full right to tear apart my car, strip search me, pat me down and anything else they want to. I have signed those rights away for the honor to protect myself and unfortunately YOU... those that think guns are bad. I tell my friends..."If it weren't for guns... we would be British... and scones suck!"

I respect your feelings against guns, but I counter that with the fact that if we are unarmed against our enemies... homegrown and other... who will defend us? Our local police, national guard??? Laughable. Hitler disarmed his people. China has disarmed theirs. Algeria disarmed theirs. And New Yawk, California and DC... strangely places with incredible crime rates.... interesting... But I will defend YOUR right to tell me I shouldn't have them. I don't like your car, perfume, whatever... should we ban them? The batteries in Prius are severely polluting and it's a dangerous car in some circumstances.... Since I think they are not a necessary thing ( I drive a VW Diesel at 50mpg so who needs dangerous batteries)BAN THEM! Your perfume bothers me and causes little kids to have asthma attacks... itty bitty, crying, sad faced kids....wheezing, coughing and gasping because you have on too much Chanel #5. Ban It. Coke Rots your teeth, costing us millions in dental bills. Ban It... you see where this is going....???? I am an adult and live by the consequences of MY actions. Sadly, 40+ years of paying taxes, living by the laws of God and Man have got me paying taxes to support deadbeats, $400/mo health insurance bills (while above mentioned Pedro gets it free) and stupid regulations over what i do in my own house... light bullbs, toilet flushes, paint, appliances and more. I remember some bald headed girl saying "Stop The Insanity!" Too Late... it has permeated our lives from the president on down to the building inspector.....

Guys, I just read an article where the owner of Colt was talking with a journalist and friend. Just then, he got a message on his blackberry from the Mexican Federal Police, Los Federales and military. They wanted to buy thousands of select fire M4 carbines and had US State Dept. approval to make the purchase (this is Obama's State Dept). Do you know what the difference is between a Federale and a narco-trafficker in Mexico? The day of the week and whether his uniform is on! They kill any police who try to enforce the law there. They call it, "Do you want the silver or the lead?" US citizens are not allowed to buy select fire M4's made right here in America, but the Mexican Federales and military are no problem. I bet they'll even use US tax dollars in foreign aid to pay for them as a counter-drug plan from the administration.

Don't be fooled into this BS ruse by the statists. Out of one particular group of seized weapons in 2007, the Federales gathered 87% of them that actually had recognizable serial numbers on them. Out of those that had serial numbers, an unknown quantity was referred to the BATFE. Out of those 9% were of US origin. For some reason, this unscientific study was used to report that over 90% of the weapons used by the cartels is from the US! And MSNBC, CBS, ABC, tout is as good journalism.

The fact is that the banking industry is making more profit off of narcotics than energy or legal arms trade, which are the three biggest industries in the world. They simply will not let governments enforce the laws, which is every more reason for Americans to arm themselves with AR15's, semi-auto Kalashnikov clones, etc. , as the narco-traffickers move into our cities and shoot our police for fun when pulled over. We have already suffered 4 police officer murders last year by narco-traffickers on one highway system in my State, the first being a female officer that was shot right above her vest. Also, individual police officers and soldiers often purchase their own semi-auto military style rifles to train with, as budgets don't offer enough time or money to facilitate suitable training that can mean the difference between life and death. We need these types of weapons now more than ever because D.C. has sold us out to the cartels, and only wants to reward them with Constitutional rights.

If you're going to smoke dope, realize that YOU are financing this mess to a large part, as Mexico imports hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamines every year. In 1989, cocaine alone amounted to $500 billion of imports into the US. That money pays the cartels to be able to out-gun any law enforcement in the country. Mexico is becoming a failed state while your brain fails you. Don't come after my guns. I also think that a gun-dealer should exercise some judgment and tell a straw purchaser to take a hike if they feel any inkling that there is criminal intent. When I have worked in a gun store, I did it a few times when it was clear that some gangster wanabee was up to no good. The BATFE needs to be disbanded and have its good field agents allocated to ICE and the CTU. They have awesome bomb disposal teams, but horrible mid and senior management. Get rid of them. Obama said he wants to streamline the Federal gov't for the first time ever, so I have olenty of recommendations to how that can be done...News Flash, he won't do it.

The AK47 is a rifle that can and is used for hunting and sport. This rifle has many hunters and sportsmen who champion the use of this rifle for a variety of reasons. The ballistics charteristics of the round it fires and the rifle that shoots it are a good combination for a variety of uses. The AK47 uses a 7.62X37mm round which has 123-154 grain powder.

Other rifles that are more powerful are currently a standard for hunting Elk, Caribou, Deer, Bear, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, etc... Large game in general.
.30-06 (7.62X63mm) Springfield 150-220 grain powder
.30-30 (7.62x51mm) Winchester 110-170 grain powder
.300 (7.62X67mm) Winchester Magnum 165-200 grain powder
.308 (7.62X51mm) Winchester 150-180 grain powder
.30-378 (7.62X74mm) Weatherby Magnum 165-200 grain powder

As anyone can see, the AK47 is not the biggest gun in the woods. The others shown here are guns with the same caliber of bullet but with different case design. There are other rifles of much larger caliber that are used by hunters, some as larger as .50 caliber. Some are even larger The AK is really not any more powerful of a rifle than others on the market.

Some countries still issue full auto to every man able over the age of 18 and require military service. A concept no different than having a ready militia force. These are semi-auto rifles that are in question so I agree with the gentleman who posted the 7mm reference. In most cases I believe people are largely ignorant about guns and would benefit from at least having fired one before being qualified to render an opinion. Go after the "straw-man" not the gun. If a person is flipping them for illegal purposes, then we already have ways to prosecute that offense.

Bottom line, Until the people of this country stop the demand for drugs, it will not matter where the weapons come from. "We The People", are the reason this country has such a problem with drugs which is why so many people are dying at the border trying to get the drugs into the USA. I love my country, but, I am ashamed of what we bring onto ourselves.

Denver(what-ever-you-are) (comment #1.3): The best advice for you; don't buy the two AK-47's; then maybe no one can point out how you became a thug. [Your comment does sound like you haven't done so yet. Reading you, I hardly think you would know what to do with one of them. But maybe it should be pointed out to you that if you figure out how to even fire one, you will only be able to fire one at a time; no need for two, i____.]

People seem to forget that the NRA is only around because they have over a million citizens as members.

Those members want to keep the right to own a firearm

If they didn't they wouldn't be members.

The NRA is nothing more than a million citizens fighting for gun rights and if we didn't have that most of those citizens wouldn't be able to get to washington to express themselves and only the rabid antis would be heard.

Furthermore, the consititution can be changed! We can repeal the second. However, since 85% of the voting public believes in the right for the individual to own a firearm (at least in their own home) and about 75% believe we should be able to carry a firearm with a permit (about 65% without one) what would it be changed to? That is what prevents it from being changed. If we tried to ratify any change that didn't ensure the right to carry with a permit and own a fire arm it could not possibly be ratified because currently 88% of the states have that right written in their own constitutions! Furthermore only two states (and d.c.) do not issue carry permits! If you want to try to change the second amendment you'd be stuck with an amendment that states "Individual" AND permits carry everywhere. Anti's don't want that which is why Anti gun groups never try to alter the second! They know they would lose tremendous ground instantaniously.

Furthermore the supreme court (even before bush) ruled that the FEDERAL ban in school zones is illegal TWICE because that has to be left up to the states (most, if not all states, ban it unless you have a legitimate reason and a permit/license) . Each time it was stuck down congress passed a new version of it in an attempt to get around the surpreme court. At least up until recently and perhaps even now, children in montana could bring in hunting rifles during hunting season and have them locked up for safe keeping. Amazingly schools are safer today THAN EVER! Yes, even during the year of colombine school shootings were much higher in the 1990's and the whoel 2000's had rates lower than any other year recorded!

Our paranoia isn't based on facts it is based on hype. WE're not even attempting to educate ourselves we just keep towing the lies

I own a .40 caliber Glock for self-defense. I am not anti-gun. However, I am not afraid of tyranny from our government...what frightens me is my fellow man with ALL those guns and little respect for life.

If a man is obviously drunk and attempts to buy more liquor, a responsible shop or tavern owner will not serve them. The folks at Lone Wolf must be very proud of themselves. If you want your guns, the industry must show some restraint.

Instead of Outrage on where the guns are coming from, WHY NOT OUTRAGE ON WHERE THE DAMN DRUGS ARE COMING FROM!!??

HEY! Federal Government! Secure our Borders from ALL enemies!

Illegal entry by persons & DRUGS!!

Ya know it's always funny to me that the loonie left cant seem to leave the American people alone, always have to take our freedoms, claiming its the freedom thats the problem. And never do they go after the criminal, always claiming poor criminal had a bad childhood its not his or her fault....... WRONG ANSWER it is his or her FAULT........ at some point you crazies have to be RESPONSIBLE for your ACTIONS

I love how now that i keep posting the clear definition of militia (every able bodied man 17-45), after everyone swears that only the militia can have a firearm, they now shift their focus on "well regulated" but forget the "shall not be infringed" Sounds quite controdictory within the same sentence then huh?

If you ban ownership of a specific arm, or all arms, you are infact infringing on that right. Why wouldn't they say the militias can have guns and that that falls under the regulation of the senate instead of putting it into the bill of rights? Why did they put it in the constitution at all then? Doesn't make sense. What were they trying to limit the federal government from being able to do? Regulate the militia by pointing out that a well regulated militia is important? Nope that doesn't make sense. Within the constitution congress does have the right to regulate militias. There is only one reason it is in there to prevent the federal government from regulating the ownership of firearms for state militias (thats a stretch but I'll play). That has obviously been violated since the government has several bans ans regulates even what certain police departments can purchase. Let disregard even that. There's the whole incorporation amendment that makes all amendments apply to the states which means they all must adhear to it, lets disregard that as well! Now the only people that could regulate firearms in anyway would be state governments. 44 states have the right to bear arms within there own consititutions. So only 6 states could then ban firearms. for example PA makes it illegal to change the section of their consitution that guarantees the citizens (not militia) right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state. Okay then you can move to that state and leave us alone.

Maybe, just maybe, while the militia was use as one possible reason for the right, is not the only reason for the right.

Oh, common sense that is obviously not so common.

Regardless if we seriously analyise the second even by taking every anti argument as fact, the only governmental body that could regulate firearms could be the states, but most have limited themselves from doing so. Can we shut up about it now? Nope, because it's not about logic, its about how much they hate guns and their emotional paranoia driven thoughts.

Only paranoid individuals fear that "big brother" is watching them and is simply waiting for the right opportunity to break down their door at 2:00 in the morning.

Actually, these same people have an incredibly heightened sense of self-importance.

Trust me, you are not that important for the U.S. Government, or anyone else for that matter, to want to monitor and keep track of you!

I have numerous rifles including a Mac 90, Mini-30, Mini-14, M-14, Colt Sporter HBar, Remington PSS, etc., etc. I also have a Striker 12 and thus have agreed to allow law enforcement to enter my home 24/7 to check the weapon. (It is class III for those that don't understand)

My net worth places me easily in the top 1% in the U.S. and I have absolutely no fear of our government taking anything (but taxes) from me.

All you card-carrying ACLU members need to get a real life and forget the notion that someone really cares about what you do. They don't! You are just as unimportant than each and every one of the almost 400,000,000 that live in the U.S. Trust me, no one gives a rat's ass about your political or social views, especially the BATF.

I welcome the government monitoring weapon sales. They already know what I have and it does not bother me in the least.

It is interesting that the Obama Administration turns a blind eye to this problem but choses to prosecute Gary Jackson and other former Blackwater employees for having weapons that were used to train U.S. Special Forces and protect Hillary Clinton and other diplomats. Of course politics has nothing to do with it, does it?

Well "average joe": Where are all the drugs coming from? How are so many learning how to use them and who's to blame for the drugs? Maybe it's the store clerk who let your mother buy the pain medicine with hydrocodone in it? (The same thing that Chris Benoit, pro wrestler in Atlanta, was taking.) Maybe it's the drug store clerk who let your kid (who knows more about these things than you) steal the bottle of ibuprofen; and when he came home he found his grandmother's pain medicine with hydrocodone in it. Maybe his grandmother is guilty of being a drug dealer too? Or, maybe the drug dealer is the clerk who let you buy the bottle of Hoodia (weight loss product) and Tylenot 3 at the same time?

LOL just becase you have a NFA firearm, the BATF cannot just break down your door at 2:00 am 24/7 that's a falicy. Cite some law for me :) and when you cannot find it please tuck your tail in between your legs.

You obviously need to brush up on your law, actually maybe that should be the "well regulated" we're looking for, people need to know the law before opening their mouths.

The BATF still needs a warrant and to get on they need probable cause, purchase itself is not probable cause that any crime is under foot.

In general no governmental entity cares about anything. Its the crazy people that slip in to control these entities. The bad law enforcemtn officers, those that are self-important.

No one owning a machine gun, or any amount of firearms in any quantity can have the BATF force their way into their homw without a warrant for ANY REASON!

Please stop proliferating since nonsence and false facts.

The majority of the drug cartel firearms do not come from the U.S., but rather Central and South America. The weapons are typically come from Russia, parts of Europe, and China, whereby the cartels can buy crates of them inexpensively/wholesale. Why would they need to pay full retail plus sales tax to buy such small quantities, at such a high risk. The border is far more flexible at the southern part of Mexico than at the border with the U.S. If you look closely at the border drug bust videos online, most of the firearms are post 1986 Class III weapons, such as fully automatic AK47's, fully automatic FAL rifles, European belt fed rifles, etc. These are not available for civilians to purchase from ANY FFL dealer. Other destructive devices, such as RPG's and hand grenades are not available for purchase from FFL dealers in the U.S. If we will use our eyes, read and understand the laws on automatic weapons/destructive devices, and exercise some common sense, we will see that the claim that 90% of firearms in possession of cartels are coming from the U.S. and 10% from other sources is wildly incorrect, with the reverse statistic to more likely be true. I believe this to, more accurately, be a way for the current admin to get the foot in the door for another type of firearms ban or restriction.

Well no one wants to confront the problem,we have gun runners in America and the NRA goes DAH. Why can't adults act like that,the NRA ought to be decerticified and disbanded by Congress if they support a foreign power to have weapons for the overthrow of and killing of American Citiizens.

Fill the Rio Grande with piranha fish to to keep the Mexicans in Mexico!

If you have a registered Class III destructive device, law enforcement has a right to enter your property 24/7 without a search warrant and demand to see the weapon. That, sir, is no fallacy or even a "falicy".

Truth Hurts-598999

I have numerous rifles including a Mac 90, Mini-30, Mini-14, M-14, Colt Sporter HBar, Remington PSS, etc., etc. I also have a Striker 12 and thus have agreed to allow law enforcement to enter my home 24/7 to check the weapon. (It is class III for those that don't understand)

Either you are ignorant to the law or you are flat out lying.

This is completely and totally false. The BATF cannot "Check the weapon" ever without a warrant, unless they have your concent and no you don't have to give it.

Please don't come back and swear I'm wrong unless you can cite LAW, you'll just be promoting this falasy more.

Oh I see you are in-fact ignorant to the law or lying since you posted before reading this.

NO THEY CANNOT!!!! I'll wait and after an infinate amount of time when you try to google the law and you'll FIND none! Oh thanks for correcting my spelling, please that is what people do when they cannot win an argument. The problem this isn't an argument it's the truth they cannot just come in your home it is a huge myth.

,

TOP MYTHS of NFA WEAPONS: De-BUNKED!

1) Machines guns and suppressors are illegal. False!

While some individual states may not allow the possession of such weapons, they are not unlawful under federal law. NFA act of 1934 makes the transfer of such weapons taxable, and created a registry for such weapons.

No machine guns made after May 1986 can be entered in the registry, creating a de facto ban on the production of new machine guns for civilians. This de facto ban does not apply to other NFA items.

2) You need a license to buy an NFA item. False!

No License is required. What you need to do is pay a tax on the transfer of each item in your possession. The tax is currently $200 for machine guns, suppressors, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, and destructive devices. The transfer tax for Any Other Weapon is $5.

Some states may have permitting or licensing requirements that have to be met prior to the purchase of NFA items, but there is no Federal "Class 3" license. That term is usually used to refer to a Class 1 FFL who has paid the SOT (Special Occupation Tax) fee to allow them to deal in Title II weapons and devices (NFA).

3) I have to pay the NFA tax every year. False!

Another common myth; the transfer tax is paid once per transfer of the weapon, whether you own it for 10 days or 10 years.

4) Owning an NFA item means agreeing to give up your 4th amendment protections. False!

This is an often repeated myth. No one can search your home (or whatever location you used for your ATF tax form) without your permission or a warrant just because you own NFA items.

5) If I buy an NFA item I�ll have to buy a safe to store it in. False!

While you are required to maintain control of your NFA items at all times (and a safe to which only you have access goes a long way to meeting this requirement), there is no law that requires you to buy a safe to store your NFA items.

6) No one else is allowed to use my NFA weapons. False!

As long as you are maintaining control (which means you don�t leave the NFA items in the sole care of someone other than yourself) your friends and family are welcome to use them, as long as you are physically present.

7) If I die the ATF gets my NFA items or another tax will have to be paid by my heir. False!

You can will your NFA items tax free to a legal heir

Bovine Scatology The founding fathers were not stupid. They knew that things would advance because of the advancements in their lifetime. They meant for the citizens of this country to be as well armed as they could to prevent dictatorships in our country and to keep foreign invaders at bay.

Assault weapons were banned to the general public in 1932.

Id be a lot more impressed if they could staunch the flow of mexicans in instead of guns out.

If you want to know why you believe this it is because other paranoid people have sworn to you that this is true.

The only persons subject to scheduled inspections are FFLs

Assault weapons were banned to the general public in 1932.

They have never been banned by the federal government, even during the AWB you could own a pre-AWB "assualt weapon" Until the 1980's you could purchase a new fully automatic firearm with just a tax stamp. The machine gun ban was worthless, there wasn't a machine gun murder at all (i beleive) since well well before that period of time. Furthermore you can still own a machine gun if you buy a pre 1980's ban one. You just need a $200 tax stamp, approval from your local law enforcement officer (easy to get in gun friendly areas), and a lot of money. the ban is on the manufacture and sale of post 1980's machine guns for civilians. It does aero good because machine guns basically stopped being used in crime after the 20's and they are relitively poor at murdering.

The constitutionality of warrentless "administrative search" of licenses provided for in the Gun Control Act (IE Class III Destructive Devices) has been upheld by the US Supreme Court, see US vs. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972).

Due something constructive and disband the BATF.

Ted calls me an idiot, ...

Ted asks for the law, ...

I give him the case law, ...

He runs like a little girl.

I'm thinking he likes to hear himself type.

Here's some more information for the truthhurts who doesn't seem to know the truth

As to one who is neither a FFL nor SOT, but only owns
weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act, the law seems
clear, but practice is a little murky. ATF may only compel you
to show an agent upon request the registration paperwork, that
is the Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or whatever else might have been used
to register the weapon. See 26 USC sec. 5841(e). They do not
have any right to compel you to show them the weapon. However
they apparently (I have no first hand knowledge) take the
position that they can compel one to show ATF the weapon upon
request, even if the owner has no FFL. As always the Fourth
amendment applies, and ATF may not enter your home or other place
of storage of the NFA weapon, nor seize the weapon, without a
warrant, or without falling under an exception the Supreme Court
has created to the operation of the Fourth amendment. They
should also need a warrant to compel a non-FFL holder to show
them the weapon, and I would insist upon that, myself.

You have obviously confused FFL with NFA. They are two very different things. There is also no reason for them to request you to show them your paperwork unless they notice that you have possetion of an NFA weapon but do not know if it was registered! If they know you have an NFA weapon because you registered it they know you have the paper work or that you registered the item in the first place.

:) enjoy looking for that law that doesn't exist.

Maybe you're thinking about a state or local law but the BATF cannot just enter your home without a warrant unless you give them concent.

The antigun individuals are so blind to the obvious truth, this article and its subject are written to make you think these fully auto capable, select fire, chinese made, new AK47s which are not even legal to be brought into the US for sale MAY have been bought from gunshops. These gunshops did not and could not have been able to have them. The only entities legally capable in the US of getting these firearms are the US federal government, and law enforcement agencies. The US government purchases weapons like this to give to the mexican government, these weapons are either intercepted by the cartels during delivery, illegally stolen, or sold to the cartel in mexico, or mexican soldiers go AWOL and take their weapons with them when they are hired by the cartel. Point the finger where it neds to be pointed, not at inocent law abiding American citizens.

By the way semi auto sporting firearms are NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS. The definition of an assault weapon is select fire capable (the ability to fire more than one round per single operation of the action, ie full auto, 3rd burst, 2 rd burst, 4 rd burst). Many assault rifles have barrels with a total fixed length of less than 16 inches (ie 10, 12, 14.5 inch), not fixed lengths of 16 inches or more (which impedes the individual from maneuvering through doorways quickly while keeping the sights on target.

Real assault weapons already require an expensive federal tax stamp which involves a character witness of a major law enforcement representative to stand behind the individual applying to possess to be of sound mind and character in good standing with all law enforcement. Real assault weapons that are legally owned in the US are only manufactured before 1986 and have outrageous prices such as $16,000 for a single rifle in semi/functioning condition that may require expensive remodeling to make whole.

Before pointing the finger at one mans legal firearm and mistaking it for a foriegn military weapon educate yourself. Next, G.W Bush put into place a foriegn made barrel/reciever ban, so these weapons were not capable to be brought into the US except by the US government.

Secure the border and keep the mexican criminals out. Why would a mexican cartel pay more than $744.65 each for semiauto sporting rifles that cannot be used for military purposes, when they can buy legally and far cheaper, the real military weapon from China (and they do) for $45-$65 at most per rifle new? Educate yourselves people. The last time this false info was handed out by the ATF it was proven false in the articles within 2 weeks by the FBI.

To Jacob-2884019 -

Pardon But Uhhhm! For your Information they had Cannons back then Numbnutz and They did not specify that civilians could not own one. Even though they were smart Enough to figure this out when the Peoples Rights were stated in the Constitution! Therefore you know of Zilch!!!

P.S. - you can still legally buy one today!

I didn't run anywhere, that applies ONLY to FFLs! Read the ruling..

Oh wow, you're going to be fun

I never called you and idiot, NEVER! I said you were ignorant of the law, which you are.

The constitutionality of warrentless "administrative search" of licenses provided for in the Gun Control Act (IE Class III Destructive Devices) has been upheld by the US Supreme Court, see US vs. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972).

I'm not trying to argue with you, you're obviously pro-gun, I'm trying to educate you!

And again I never called you an IDIOT!

NEVER!

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972)

United States v. Biswell

No. 71-81

Argued March 28, 1972

Decided May 15, 1972

406 U.S. 311

Syllabus

Warrantless search of locked storeroom during business hours as part of inspection procedure authorized by § 923(g) of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which resulted in the seizure of unlicensed firearm from a dealer federally licensed to deal in sporting weapons held not violative of Fourth Amendment. Pp. 406 U. S. 311-317.

442 F.2d 1189, reversed and remanded.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 406 U. S. 317. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 406 U. S. 317.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/406/311/case.html

"the premises (including places of storage) of any firearms or ammunition . . . dealer . . . for the purpose of inspecting or examining (1) any records or documents required to be kept . . . and (2) any firearms or ammunition kept or stored by such . . . dealer . . . at

18 U.S.C. § 923(g). Respondent, a pawn shop operator who was federally licensed to deal in sporting weapons, was visited one afternoon by a city policeman and a Federal Treasury agent who identified himself, inspected respondent's books, and requested entry into a locked gun storeroom. Respondent asked whether the agent had a search warrant, and the investigator told him that he did not, but that § 923(g) authorized such inspections. Respondent was given a copy of the section to read, and he replied, "Well, that's what it says, so I guess it's okay." Respondent unlocked the storeroom, and the agent found and seized two sawed-off rifles which respondent was not licensed to possess. He was indicted and convicted for dealing in firearms without...

[edited because the ruling is long]

..

We have little difficulty in concluding that, where, as here, regulatory inspections further urgent federal interest, and the possibilities of abuse and the threat to privacy are not of impressive dimensions, the inspection may proceed without a warrant where specifically authorized by statute. The seizure of respondent's sawed-off rifles was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The case you brought up is often cited but the ruling only applies to FFLs and there is no aggement to allow BATF inspections nor STAUTUE for persons that have just a NFA. Which the ruling expressly requires! Go find that statute, agreement, or anything else that even looks like it in any US FEDERAL LAW or application for NFA! It isn't there because it isn't true.

Keep looking.

I'm not a criminal and I have some of these weapons. Watch how you accuse someone if you don't know what your talking about.

If you want truthhurts I can cite the next two "case laws" you're going to bring up (and not read) for you right now and they all apply to FFLs only because the BATF has never entered a NFA only persons home without a warrant, they know they cannot.

It's okay for you to just say, WOW i didn't know that thanks for informing me. It won't hurt you. Because the truth shouldn't hurt anyone.

I'm going to bed now, i'm not running from anything, I'll check back to this thread for your responses. I promise you though that your attempts to find law or "case law" will end up yeilding nothing.

What I see, is neither side will back down one iota. I would consider the issue to be whether or not we Americans want the gun sales to stop going across the border. I want them to stop. If the cartels are brazen enough to assault the Mexican government, why won't people realise once they get large enough, they will attack us? This is a disease that won't stop as long as it's fed and supported. Americans are using the drugs that many innocent people are being murdered over; Americans are buying/selling the weapons to drug lords; politicians don't seem to think this is an important issue. What's wrong with this picture? Why do we keep blaming Mexico?

Why should the cartels, who can move TONS of drugs, into the US for BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, even need someone to buy guns 10 or 20 at a time? They buy guns by the hundreds and thousands. Usually no need to have them flown/trucked in, they get them straight from the Mexican Army! No US gun shop sells full-auto weapons in those numbers. These are INDUSTRIAL amounts. Seems that all the searches and traces never seem to mention Mexico's govt.. Does anyone check their book-keeping?

Argue it how you will, but give me one good reason a person should have the need and/or the right to go and buy 20-30 assault rifles at a time. And the argument that these might be legit dealers reselling for profit is bogus. They are not going after dealers, they are going after the straw buyers.

As for the whole "Right to bear arms" debate. Those same founders had just fought a war in which 5% of the population had been killed. A war fought with single shot muzzle loading rifles, flintlock pistols, and edged weapons. A skilled rifleman could fire and reload a musket fast enough to average around 3 shots per minute.

We had no standing army, almost all weapons used were personal firearms or guns obtained from theft or battle. It's logical to assume that the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent future difficulties the drafters themselves had to endure during the rebellion in obtaining their weapons and freeing themselves from foreign rule. None of which apply today except in the minds of conspiracy nuts. Today we have firearms in our homes that can put out 600-700 rounds a minute if not more, hi-capacity clips, and are accurate to a degree that would shock an 18th century soldier. I find it difficult to believe that they could have predicted the kinda fire power we have today when they were drafting all this. Not to mention we have a standing army more powerful than any other on this planet.

I seem to recall the frenzy of gun buying that went on as Obama was being elected, from fears that he's "gonna take away all mah guns". I'm still waiting....

I'm sorry folks but as pretty as some of the home arsenal pics from Google images look, I see no need to go out and buy 20 assault rifles at a time.

It seems to me the only thing in common with gun crime is criminals, not honest citizens that responsibly own firearms. Why don't we address the real problem instead of an inanimate object that is no more dangerous than a vehicle. We see law enforcement officers every day arresting drunk drivers, not the vehicles that the drunk drivers are operating. It is the same thing. We as a country should enforce the many laws that already exist, not make new ones. If we are having problems with illegal items/people crossing our nations borders then we should do a better job at SECURING THE BORDERS. How many of our troops do we have sitting idle on bases waiting to do something. I have done just this. We are paying troops to train at bases when they could be putting their training to use securing our border. Don't the American People deserve to see their sons and daughters who serve our great nation actually serve our great nation saving American lives on our own soil, I think so.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL WHO HAVE SERVED. SemperFi

the last big story a few days ago about the mexican police/milatary attacking a cartel training camp just south of the border . among the idems recovered by officals were an armored vehicle and grenade launchers. cuba sells guns and there are 1,000,000s of guns left over from many civil wars and counter revolutions! every case of genocide in the 20th century allways followed the government taking the firearms of the people "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men were given by there creater certan inalienable rights among there is the right to life liberty and the persuit of happyness" "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS IS THE ONE RIGHT APONE WHITCH ALL OUTHERS DEPEND" t. jefferson to defend ones life and the lives of ones family is an inalienable right!

@Jacob: that is about the dumbest comment I've ever heard! If the criminals need them to rob and shoot us then we need them for our protection you idiot. Don't be putting words in dead mens mouths either. They had the citizens safety and well being in mind, not the governments and I'm sure if they knew our government had these weapons now they would be more than adament that the citizens have the same to protect their right to life. Death is a part of life, it's going to happen one way or another. Suck it up.

Chris from Yucaipa

I'm not going to give you a reason why someone would want to buy 20-30 or 1000 or even just 1 firearm.

The point is it is protected under the constitution to do just that. The BATF couldn't do squat even if they did get this regulation approved. They aren't banning sales they just want to flag people. This flagging allows them then to harass these people and get involved in nearly every personal detail of their lives, rather or not they are doing anything illegal. Then, if they just don't like the person they can and do trump up reasons to enter the home, trying to find something that would stick. Eventually someone will get harmed that doesn't deserve it. I not saying every agent is bad or that even most agents are bad, but it takes only one person in power to be bad and boom they ruin a person's life for no good reason.

No as to rather or not it should be legal and to the countless number of people that argue that any or some or just one type of arm should be illegal (for sake of argument lets say personal nuclear weapons) and that is based on your opinion that the founding fathers didn't think that firearm technology would advance to this point. Well I say then we should hold congress and the states accountable. The founding fathers created the constitution with the ability to alter it. At any time congress could have said,well we shouldn't allow people to own hand grenades, or machine guns, and as such we should alter the second to say that, if enough states ratified it, and in the case of personal nuclear weapons I think we'd have an easy time doing so. However they were too lazy. So they passed illegal laws to regulate hand grenades and machine guns and nukes instead of getting off their lazy rear ends and altering the constitution. Do you think that would be the better way? I do.

Lets take this off this specific topic to one that the vast majority of people can agree on. The first amendment forbids congress from limiting our right to read and write or in general express ourselves. We all in general agree that's a good thing, but the vast majority think child pornography should be illegal. Why didn't congress alter the first in order to ban it? It would easily get ratified! Instead they just wrote some laws, they did the same with dog fights. Why not just sit down and get the constitution changed? I'm not sure if it is just an attempt to grab power by saying well we were allowed to do that so we're allowed to ban protests at funerals and then we're allowed to ban a,b,and c. Eventually they will ban something on the same premise that we all disagree with. Say political speech, just because we consistently look the other way because what they are attacking doesn't fit in our way of life. However the slope is slippery. Will they eventually be able to ban certain parts of the bible that cover incest or child brides? No I'm not worried about it I don't see it happening in my life time but the possibility is there. This is why the constitution is so important and it's important that we hold the governments liable for violating it.

As for why we don't change the second, I have a very good theory on that one. Anti-gun would lose dramatically! The only alterations one could expect would be ones that ban say new machine guns as in the ban found in the 80's banning VIOLENT felons and mental insane persons only and with that would come national reciprocity for licenses to carry, every state would have to honor it just like they do a drivers license. Furthermore the Constitution would also be changed to specify that the individuals right to own,carry firearms and ammunition shall not be infringed, removing any further argument that could be made by anti's.

It would be a total loss, states all over the union would have to change nearly every-gun law on the books.

Just something to think about.

We need a supreme rule of the land, the federal, state and local governments must be restricted on what they can do or else they will try to regulate it all. We know that's the case because it's all around us. We need to hold our government to a standard and that standard was always meant to be the constitution, we all should want this. Liberals were typically for upholding individuals rights, they used to be for organizations like the ACLU. They stood behind the civil rights movement, they fought hard against the fascism that was often associated with the Republican party. They had to the Republican party was always trying to suppress their protesting. Now no one is a liberal, most democrats are as authoritarian as Republicans they just want the policies to be theirs not the republicans. It creates this great artificial divide. In reality most people, (now independents) want to be left alone. They don't want bans on what they can eat, drink, smoke or do. They might want bans on what others can do though :(. You cannot have it both ways, but we have become so us vs them that all we are doing is attacking each other and becoming more strict on the other side who is in-turn become more strict on us. That road leads to a totalitarian society. Democrats yell that republicans are fascist, republicans yell that democrats are communist. Meanwhile the truth is most people want neither a fascist nor communist society but we're pushing ourselves into that hole.

We need the old democratic saying of "live and let live" back AND the Republican mantra of less intrusive government (which is no longer their mantra). The idea of freedom and liberty is appealing to most people in america but we're bullied or scared into killing it by both sides. Basically its a "If I cant get my way then neither should they". That's why everyone is turning independent. I'm happy to see that but now I want to see an independent candidate that will hold the governments of this country to a simple to understand standard. Not this we can do whatever we want because we're the government attitude that prevails today.

I also have to add that if most antis understood firearms and knew the typical good rural person that owned a gun they would not be scared to let them own it. I would also say that if the typical good rural person had to deal with the rapid gangs and thugs in a city they would want to stop them from getting a firearm too. However, not if it meant losing the right themselves because to them that's the only thing that can reasonably protect them from those thugs and they would be right. The police cannot do it, we've seen that time and time again.

I hope I made myself clear (forgive the spelling and grammar mistakes please).

I'm interested in hearing people's opinons of my analysis of the situation.

What's more clear than "shall not be infringed"?

Read the whole sentence which relates to the establishment of a militia not private citizens. You and the gun lobbists who make money off of gun slaes do not care about the lives they take in the hands of criminals. Mexico is a war zone right now and most of the guns come from the US. We are stupid to be led around by the mouth piece for the arms dealers.

need is never the issue. the right to own one is. and the big question here is why give a law enforcement agency the right to make up rules, regulations or laws without congress approbving it. obama has gone aroound the congress with cap and trade. now he is contemplating skirting congress on the second amendment. what is next. your right to own a bible. or maybe we will just have the epa outlaw any vehicle that doesnt meet their approval.

To all who brought up our fore fathers.

Maybe if our fore fathers new what some of you would be saying or of the WBC they would of thought about the 1st amendment a little more also.

Quickyjerk

The 150-230 you are talking about is the bullet grain not the powder. If you reload a 30-06 with 230grains of powder the bolt could blow right back in your face.

To me the whole moral of the story would be to allow legal citizens to have weapons. The drug cartels have money they will get guns. Im sure russia would step in and sell them some. They where offering subs to coke dealers. Its not only Mexico. Look at when Chicago had a gun ban. Did all the gangs not use guns? No just the legal citizens didnt have them. Anti-gunners just dont get it and cant take it that more times than not since CCW have come into affect its getting better.

Buffalo Bob

Founding Fathers clearly intended (read Federalist Papers) for citizens to have same type of weapons as military had in order to prevent type of gov't oppression as seen in other countries. Gun control in USA started after Civil War in the South, after all it was hard to lynch "uppity @!$%#s" if they could shoot people who would try hanging them.

Locally, just north of Philadelphia there were complaints that gun dealers would call police about suspicious individuals that attempted to buy guns and police would just ignore calls, so why bother.

Your "Holier than thou" attitude in pretending to know what our founders would think is disgusting, but typical of most uneducated loners.

The reverse is true.

In the Revolutionary War, we were losing because we were using our hunting guns (36 caliber squirrel rifles), against the Brittish battle weapons (50 caliber Brown Bess muskets). We started getting our hands on equal weapons and the tide was turned.

We have not forgot this lesson. It WAS written into our laws in order to not happen again.

"Shall not be infringed" is a literal term by literal people, not todays hallway lawyers.

Biggest problem these moron's face is that an assault weapon is by deffinition "SELECTABLE FIRE" aka,

will fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. Until they understand that a semi-automatic firearm is NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON by deffinition, non of this bull will pass under the scrutiny of an enlightened and aware citizenry. However, a baseball bat can be considered "an assault weapon" when used in an assault.

"AggregatVier

The founders approved of the citizens having the standard miliatary rifle of the day so that citizen infantry would be equally armed to any opposing tyrannical forces - foreign or domestic. The colonialists even had their own cannon! What's more clear than "shall not be infringed"?

BTW I'll bet you wear a "well regulated" watch, don't you?"

I guess one person has the right to own as many assault weapons as they like, because maybe they are forming one of those well regulated militias that the founding fathers talked about.

Or maybe not.

Hey, let the straw buyers buy as many of the assault weapons and ammo that they want.

Since I live in SC, I am not affected. If I lived in a border state, though, I would seriously consider moving.

If we are not going to regulate the sale of assault weapons, then maybe we should allow the Mexican drug cartels to annex the border states. That would solve the problem.

We certainly wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's rights.

I still can't find anyone that will sell me a bazooka or surface to air missiles, anti-aircraft guns, handgrenades and claymore mines, even though I have the right to own them.

What's more clear than "shall not be infringed"?

So says you. I disagree completely, and fortunately so does the constitution.

I'm with Jacob. Why in God's name does someone need to be able to buy multiple guns of any type (much less a semi-auto with a 30 round magazine)?? If you wish to collect guns, fine. This proposed rule is meant to combat gun smuggling to criminal organizations.

I truly think that this country's best days are behind it. Our country is becoming poorer with a disappearing middle class but is heavily armed. It won't be long before we have the same status of "failed state" as countries such as Afghanastan, Somolia, etc.

Obviously,you have no working knowledge of guns which is apparent by your post."assault" weapons still only fire one bullet per trigger pull,just like Grandpa's .22 caliber semi automatic he used for shooting tin cans.Furthermore,one that fires a 7.62 bullet,you might be interested to know,is the same caliber as a hunting rifle in .308 caliber.Get an education.learn your subject and you'll look mfar more intelligent than you probably are.

Its a .30 caliber

A bunch of crock! If I had my choice I would have at least 1 of each weapon available. To protect my family, Me and my property. If it takes an AK47 to stop a would be aggressor, so be it. And may God have mercy on his/her soul, because I wont. The second amendment isn't there to protect the hunter's rights! It's there to helpus Protect our country from a hostile government. It seems that our Forefathers knew this type of crime would happen even though our country was very young at the time, and still is. They all had dreams of what our country would be when it does get older. And, of course some may have had nightmares of how big our country was going to get. Either way, Our forefathers set up the Constitution giving the Citizen's the ability to protect their country and their property. When you think about controlling our rights to weapons, think about how you are going to stop that man/woman from killing you and your family? Abolish the Corporate Government / Military Industrial Complex that's taken our and ruining our GREAT COUNTRY if you want or need a cause.

In 1776 the weapon of choice was a flintlock. Criminals had them too.....

How about we put all the criminals wiith guns in jail. The problem would be solved then. Or do something simpler, enforce the laws we have now. The Federal courts have said over and over that it is not the job of law enforcement to protect the indidual, they are to arrest the criminals after they commit a crime, it is your reponsiblity to protect yourself not theirs. Tell me why the Mexican police are not stopping the guns as they go into Mexico. Can't do that it would restrict the income of their border guards. Never mind!!

In case your wondering......most of the guns are coming into Mexico from the south. There was a shipment of AKs stopped of the coast of Mexico from Asia last year. And hand grenades from North Korea and Syria. Not to mention grenade lauchers from the Phillipines.

back then, if a state was to 'activate" its well-regulated militia (general population), the citizens where expected to bring their own guns and know how to use them. Therefore, they had to be allowed to already own them. These militia-in-waiting were typically landowners who could afford to own guns and also "sponsor" poorer people they could vouch for and provide a gun for. There are still counties in WV where homeowners are required to own a gun-- although i suspect its not strictly enforced anymore. But its still on the books.

DocX - Please stop making any comments about Canada, and retract your completely inaccurate, 'facts-only' statement made here. I live in Canada, and your comment that our 'disarmed' nation is overrun by now-unrestrained, gun owning criminals is nonsense, utter nonsense. First of all, Canadians who want to hunt, sport shoot, etc. fill out some paperwork, and buy a gun. My small town has a gun shop, it's very convenient, big deal. Gun owners abide by some rules: you need to have a storage cabinet, you need to keep your ammo separate, etc., etc. Notwithstanding the paranoid news and worries about gun registries, etc., I do not know of a single person who has had the 'government' or 'police' or any other 'authority' come to inspect/check/confiscate their gun. The only difference between Canadians and Americans is that no Canadians advocate that guns be made freely available to any single person who wants them anywhere, anytime, including weapons of war ('no infringement of 2nd amendment right'). Canadians are happy to follow rules especially if it 'creates a culture of not making it easy for children to accidentally shoot each other'. Opposition to the gun registry was about having to pay; it did not have any constitutional basis. P.S. Canadians are not pacifist, socialist, marxist, liberal wussies; next time there's a big global dust-up (e.g. WWIII), Canadians will once again be leading the charge for the 'allies' with isolationist, xenophobic Americans bringing up the rear sucking our dust.

cobblesong

You dont count because your not under our constitution. I dont agree with docx either but stay let america decide what is best for america. Second if a criminal breaks in how well does it work for you having your gun locked up and ammo unavailable? Or do you have to run apply for a permit? Either way to late. Canadians leading the charge is a bit much seeing Americans prob will have spec ops in country before the nucks even ship out.

Grape shot in cannons was the full auto of the day in the Revolutionary War. If they knew how to make a full auto in those days, they would have done it and they would have allowed the American citizen to own it. They knew the value of Freedom and they knew the value of the people knowing how to use a firearm.

Just look at England during the Second World War if you need to understand the importance of knowledge of firearms and marksmanship. We had to supply them with most of what they used. Some were hunting rifles that never made it back home.

America today has more Firearms laws on the books than do the rest of the world combined. We are the only nation on earth that allows something to happen and then puts restrictions on it. Pretty goofy if you think about it.

The Mexican Cartels get most of their firearms from their own police and military members that are part of the Cartels. They also can get them imported directly from China or Russia through Cuba, Venezuela and other Socialist friendly countries down there. Where do you all think these drugs come from? Do you think you can't ask your dealer to deliver a load of full auto AK47s or M16s with each shipment of drugs?

Silly liberal people, blaming a gun shop in America for Mexico's drug cartels. Why don't you blame the scum bag drug users in America and Canada for the problems in Mexico? That is where the real issue is.

Truth Hurts 598999

Actually, these same people have an incredibly heightened sense of self-importance.

Reading your posts, my conjecture would be that you are projecting.

I have numerous rifles including a Mac 90, Mini-30, Mini-14, M-14, Colt Sporter HBar, Remington PSS, etc., etc. I also have a Striker 12 and thus have agreed to allow law enforcement to enter my home 24/7 to check the weapon. (It is class III for those that don't understand)

My net worth places me easily in the top 1% in the U.S. and I have absolutely no fear of our government taking anything (but taxes) from me.

The concept of the Second Amendment is to keep Government from over powering its people. If the people are not allowed to posses firearms, the government can operate with out fear of the people. Hence, it matters not what firearms have progressed to from the time it was writen the principle remains the same. If the government has them so should its people.

My main reason I agree with Jacob is because the speed at which a gun could be fired when the 2nd amendment was drafted versus today.

Your insinuating that the founding fathers (during the construction of the 2nd amendment) didn't anticipate weapons getting faster and easier to operate? Really?

They used the slowest handheld weapons imaginable at the time! @!$%#ing muskets for Gods sake! You really don't think that any of the founding fathers might have once thought, "Hm, this reload time is pathetically slow, and it can only hit one person at a time. Maybe someone will figure out how to make it better in the future!"

~.~'

Please... they were smart people. The people of the past KNEW that technology advances. The functionality of the gun has not changed. It is still the same thing in principle, and therefore a principle based amendment is still accurate.

Why don't we address the real problem instead of an inanimate object that is no more dangerous than a vehicle.

No more dangerous than a vehicle? Oh the irony. In 2009, 33,808 people were killed in and by vehicles in the US alone. If you would like to compare a gun to a vehicle, fine. We set a minimum age that ur allowed to begin driving. We require driver education in most states prior to receiving a license. Once you pass a test and obtain one, we then require you to have insurance in case of mishap and to keep that vehicle registered at all times. We periodically require you to renew that license and registration and keep your current personal details up to date.

Because of both these requirements and the improved safety of these weapons(vehicles), over the last 10 years deaths involving them have dropped over 25%. That's with the number on the road increasing by the same percentage. In my OPINION, much of this is due to the paperwork required to obtain and legally own a car. Yet it's the paperwork and hoops to buy a gun that seems to have the gun lobbyists clamoring for less regulation. I have no problem if you choose to buy whatever gun you like as long as it's legal and do it by the book. Why the fear and paranoia that Big Brother is gonna come and take your guns away? Or that you are preparing to wage war and defend against our soon-to-be-oppressive government? Those same fears have been circulating the fringes of society for a long time and have never happened.

Perhaps you fear that Congress will pass laws banning all the guns you own? Well, if they do, vote them out! Get a new group of pro-gun legislators in office. Republicans have been bragging about how voters who were fed up with the status quo voted in a whole new government. So clearly the system works, right? Legal redress for the laws you feel are unfair. Viva la Republic! (/sarcasm off)

Actually there is a group of people who challenged just what you claim is legal. They do not register their cars, do not have dirvers licences and do not have to buy insurance. Why, we have to right to travel the roadways without regulation unless it is for commerce. So again you're distorting the facts and talking about laws you do not understand. Shall not be infringed doesn't mean except that we're going to whenever we feel like it.

What's your definition of a drug dealer? Maybe it's the store clerk who let your mother buy the pain medicine with hydrocodone in it? Maybe it's the drug store clerk who let your kid (who knows more about these things than you) steal the bottle of ibuprofen; and when he came home he found his grandmother's pain medicine with hydrocodone in it. Maybe his grandmother is guilty of being a drug dealer too? Or, maybe the drug dealer is the clerk who let you buy the bottle of Hoodia (weight loss product) and Tylenol 3 at the same time?

Jrr..So what if they want to track all long guns....they are talking about multiple sales. That should immediately raise suspicion when someone comes in to buy multiples of guns, and it should be reported.

If the Feds come to your home to investigate that purchase, so what, if you have nothing to hide and you're going to use the guns for hunting or protection, then you have no problem do you? On the other hand, if you have an entire arsenal in your basement, preparing for the next revolution against the government, then you probably better think twice about calling attention to yourself.

No law abiding citizen is worried about the Fed coming to their home...it's all about having no restrictions on weapons whatsoever and accepting these mass killings as collateral damage for that right.

Shame on you for your misguided thinking.

Kaara there are plenty of reasons to buy multiple long guns at once. I have done it several time and it was always to save money. In CA you can use the same federal form to transfer as many long guns as you want and since you only used one form and one transfer you only pay one fee.

If the Gov't really want to know what is going on they ALREADY have the right to inspect the books of an FFL holder. The fereral form list the make and caliber amongst several other things about the firearm. Again why not use the laws IN PLACE

Actually if I bought a thousand guns at once the BATF would still have no authority to enter my home without a warrant. I doubt they could get one from any respectible judge because purchases are not an indication of a crime afoot. However they would shop for a less than respectable judge until they win.

That stinks.

Now when they come they would shoot the homeowners dog, maybe the 88 year old bed ridden man while dumping the 82 year old wheelchair bound grandmother of 10 on the ground all to find out that opps this was the wrong address and that the guy that bought 1000 guns, doesn't actually have them in his house, just opened a museum and all the guns were collectables that are less than functioning anyway.

Fantastic.

That is why this is so scary. They don't often just detain the guy while he's at the grocery store and ask him simple questions, they go in like robbers and shoot the place up first and then look like thugs later.

Ted....it's only scary to those who spend their time imagining all kinds of negative scenarios so that they can put that on the internet whenever their right to have unrestricted access to weapons is in question. To me it's just another poor excuse given by gun rights supporters.

I guess if you had all those guns in your home and someone entered in that manner, you would be able to protect yourself....shoot first and ask questions later....isn't that the NRA mantra?

No that isn't the mantra. These aren't imaginary scenarios because they actually happen nearly every single day. There are numerous articles at any given time where SWAT teams entered the wrong home and shoot dogs and the wrong, very innocent people.

And this is where the Big Brother idiots don't realize that if it really came down to it, the government could kill all of us with or without AK47 ownership. Its ridiculous to think otherwise. The ownership of these guns only goes to create risk to peopl and property that does not need to exist.

RE: "The government could kill all of us with or without AK47 ownership. Its ridiculous to think otherwise."

You obviously didn't watch any of the Iraq war coverage, where a relative handful of people armed with small arms continually challenged the US Army's ability to control the population. The government simply doesn't have enough troops to control 250 million armed citizens. THAT'S why the Founders wanted the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution; because all government wants more and more power over the People, and unless those people are able to physically stop the government's military from oppressing them, they'll live as slaves.

basedrum thats absolute bunk.that would also mean doing away with anything that has a potential to cause people and property damage,and that my friend is a long list

danny-2989160

basedrum thats absolute bunk.that would also mean doing away with anything that has a potential to cause people and property damage,and that my friend is a long list

And those dangerous things are regulated. Poison..regulated. Chemicals...regulated. Bad auto...regulated. Bad baby crid...regulated.

Yeah, after banning guns, then they'll have to ban knives. And then after they ban knives, they'll have to ban forks, and pencils, and crayons...and... Hey, it was reported this evening that New Jersey wants to ban sledding. You know, snow sledding!!!! This is not a joke. Sledding is too dangerous and has the capacity to cause too many injuries and spur too many lawsuits.

That is true basedrum, but yet so naive. What would be the point of a government that hath nothing to govern? If there was tyranny in this country (meaning the members of government no longer represented its citizens and only represented its own interests) and the opposition was armed (just like the constitution gives we the people the right to defend ourselves against tyranny and the tyranny of our government by baring arms), the government would have a hell of a time (even with the military) overcoming the opposition. It’s not like the people of this nation with guns, don’t know how to use them like the people of third world nations. Eliminating that opposition would be quite difficult. You can’t just bomb infrastructure like in wars that we fight overseas. And if you think the insurgency is difficult to overcome in Afghanistan or Iraq, just imagine what it would be like in America with an armed population. It is a very simple concept. Guns are prevalent in our nation and that is why we have not been invaded yet. Or do you think that the reason we haven’t been invaded yet is because people love us in the world?

And truly, do you not live your day to day life because of the fear that someone might have an AK-47? How about an M4? How about an M206 grenade launcher? I can assure you that people in this nation, criminals and non-criminals alike possess these weapons. In short, you better stop going to work and enjoying your life, hide out in your home and make sure you arm yourself to defend against this imminent threat because there is no talking it out with someone who wants to kill you…

If you didn’t catch the gist of the last sentence, it was riddled with sarcasm.

Besides this article has nothing to do with what AK-47s are doing to this country. This article has to do with what the ATF wants to do to prevent what AK-47s and “long guns” are doing to Mexico. That is not our problem and frankly, if you haven’t looked around, we don’t have the money to be spending on Mexico. Drug Cartels have tons of money. If you cut the flow of weapons from our country, they are going to get it from somewhere else and even if they have to pay more for them. Since they penetrated various levels of the Mexican government already, I am sure it would be extremely difficult for them to gain access to military grade weapons… Again sarcasm.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

-Benjamin Franklin

I don't buy the argument that the 2nd Amendment is outdated because the founding fathers never could have foreseen what guns we have now. Well, I doubt they could have foreseen television and the internet either. Maybe the 1st Amendment is outdated too?

As for banning and strictly controlling guns, look at two countries that have done it recently. Great Britain outright banned handguns and severly restricted long guns. Since then, their violent crime rate has skyrocketed and surpassed our own and home invasions have increased dramatically. Same thing happened in Australia. Deaths and suicides by guns went down, yet violent crime and home invasions increased while suicides went up as well (just not by guns).

And "self-defense" is not a valid reason for gun ownership in those countries. In one case in Great Britain, an elderly man was attacked in his home at night by a knife-wielding burglar. He shot and killed him with a rifle that was "banned". He was later convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Anyone who thinks that's right, please let me know.

...and Mexico has arguably the most strict gun laws in the world. As a result, only the corrupt government and the cartels have them. Ask the 33,000 people murdered in Mexico last year what they think about that...

Yes! Once again, wouldn't it be best to secure our borders? Why is this such a big issue with our government, that they seem to want to do anything "but" secure our borders? Mexico doesn't seem to be too concerned about securing their borders either.

As a drill sgt. I taught a assault weapons course. I very first thing you do is put the M-16 on full auto. None, NONE of these rifles they talk about are full auto like a M-16!!!!! They are showing military style rifle that are semi-automatic. The city where I lived in Illinois siad that a assault weapon is ANY firearm that fires with just the pull of the trigger......that woud include even a double barreled shotgun. The truth is that the gun grabbers want to take away ALL fireams. They just want to START with one at a time.

Why don't we try something different, ARREST CRINAMLS and keep them in jail. Don't reduce the time, Don't reduce the charges. Don't say they are insane.....if someone does a crime, they are a criminal.....PERIOD!!

Read the Second Amnedmnet again and look carefully at it this time. it says" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" It doen't say free STATES, it mean free stste as free condition. Free situation. Not free Virginina not,. Free Califorina.....it would have said free State if that is what they meant. Then go read ALL of this. http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/guns.html

amen brother, Lets build the great wall of America on the southern border and stop BSin about it

But yet no citizens own any of those weapons and even back then they didn't own cannons. Why? Because the amendment was for bearable individual arms not unit level field weapons. The amendment was not unreasonable then and it still isn't now. It's very reasonable for citizens to own the common individual weapons of their age so that they are not completly at the mercy of their government that might be taken over by tyrants, or criminals. They were a problem back then are they still are today.

Heavily armed individuals harboring paranioa toward our government, is a recipe for disaster.

So, do you have the resources to harvest plutonium and uranium to make a nuclear weapon? Also, do you have the labor and unit costs to make such a weapon? Also, do you have the capability to enrich it to where it can actually be used?

Yes, because that's the same as owning a pistol and rifle. Your logic is extremely daunting.

For the ignorant people of what the U.S. Constitution really say, "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." Notice the U.S. Constitution did not say (only in times of need of a militia [since these people would need their guns to begin with to form a militia and how could they secure thier lands that make up the state], or did it not say the right of persons in that militia will only have to keep and bear arms. This would only give power to the one's selected to control the security of the state and may have sold out the state to a foreign or domestic foe. The king of England shall not have rule in my house. This was the same oppression that we broke from and now I fear that we have yoked our country back to. To sum it up, it is man's wicked heart that kills. Take all guns away and he will yet devise another means to kill. Biblically speaking, it is only murder when you take innocent life; so for you that want to take all guns away, who will help in your time of need.

.

"Arms" as referred to in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution means small arms, individually carried weapons. Although During the Revolution some citizens did indeed have cannons, how they got them I have no Idea...

And again you are confusing semi with fully. And the Second wasn't just protecting hunting rights but self defense as well. Do you really expect people to defend themselves with muskets?

I know several hunters that use semi-automatic rifles (Browning BARs, Winchester SXRs, etc) and semi-automatic shotguns (Benelli M2/Super Black Eagle IIs, Remington 11/87s, etc.), so that's an outright lie. I also know people who use SKS' for hunting deer, as the 7.62x39 M43 Soviet catridge (yes, the same one that fires in the AK"47s" that you demonize so much) has around the same ballistics as a .30-30 Winchester.

Once again, the people who want to ban this and ban that don't realize they don't know just exactly what they're banning.

Also, it's "magazines," not "clips." That's how I know you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

The difference between my Remington Woodmaster 270 auto and a AK 47 is that he AK is easily ( albeit illegally)turned into a fully automatic where the Remington cannot become fully automatic not matter what you do. But a 270 can bring down big game @ a distance of 500 yards or more where an AK47 would be challenged to do so.

A semi-automatic AK cannot be converted easier than any other weapon can. You have to completely change out the internal parts to do so, and in the end, it's easier if you just somehow illegally obtain a fully automatic, or do a legal transfer of a fully-automatic weapon from someone who has grandfathered it in.

Where do you people come up with this drivel?

Why do we need to go back to the guns available when the Constitution was written? There's no logic to that.

And if more "reporting of purchase" laws are enacted what is there that convinces you that criminals will buy their guns legally at a shop - their moral sense of right and wrong?

BTW - "straw buyers" are not legally purchasing guns

I bought a semi-automatic 22 gauge rifle. Now I wish I'd have gotten a 308 or a 7mm for deer. But, the 22 is useful for the local mean dogs and other large wild critters that run around on the property here.

Jay has a valid point. Gun smugglers are NOT going to purchase guns from a local dealer. There are plenty of ways to get guns without going through a licensed dealer. As long as somebody wants a gun, there will always be someone around to sell one. In China, guns are illegal. The local cops aren't even allowed to carry them, but guess who has guns there? The local mafia and common criminals. And the criminals who don't have guns have very large knives that they use.

Using your logic since the founders are all dead we should scrap the entire constitution. Maybe you want to be ruled by a king or dictator but I choose to rule myself. I enjoy my freedoms.

Then again since you made me the king and I do not like what you just typed Off with his head!!!

Remember those times in our history?

You are right Niceguy. The founding fathers had no idea what was going on or how to establish a solid foundation for this great nation. Especially with the first amendment, right? That is why you have the ability to share your foolish bouts of logic... aka freedom of speech..

And before you are offended by the word foolish, I will give you the definition:

fool·ish

   [foo-lish] Show IPA

–adjective
1.
resulting from or showing a lack of sense; ill-considered;unwise: a foolish action, a foolish speech.

2.
lacking forethought or caution.

3.
trifling, insignificant, or paltry.

Origin:
1250–1300; ME folish, foolish. See fool¹ , -ish¹

Perhaps because it's political suicide?

I bet Obama is reading your very words right now. He is certainly in tune with you...

Pathetic...

There are indeed reasonable solutions and I agree that it's a problem we need to deal with IMMEDIATELY. A few things first:

The statistics are questionable, especially since no one has actually SEIZED that many weapons and the number is an educated guess. Even with the raids, the numbers if true would actually have the US Government looking at Mexico the same as it did Columbia back in the 80's and we'd be doing more direct "interdictions" there.

Now back to the "common sense solutions." There are three, immediate and effective things we can do that would NOT violate any American's rights:

1. Truly secure the American borders (not just between the US and Mexico).
2. Vigorously enforce the existing laws against illegal drugs, guns, etc.
3. Update the standards for convictions and punishments for gun, drug and violent crime in general.

You can't have rights without responsibilities, nor can you have justice without both compassion and punishment. We need to balance this all out people yet we're fixated on the gun itself when it's no more the offender than the needle or the bank robber's note. Focus on the PROBLEM!

Well, there were NOT "30,000 weapons purchased in AZ for criminals use in Mexico". The ONLY weapons that can be traced are from the US, other countries don't require serial numbers on weapons. The Mexican gov't won't say how many weapons are confiscated. They won't show BATF or FBI agents the guns, they refuse to let them check the weapons even. The fact is that some of the weapons can be traced to the US, BUT they were legally sold or given to the Mexican gov't to help their troops. When a Mexican cop or army member goes AWOL they take the weapons with them or sell them to the drug cartels. The drug cartels have enough money to make million dollar submarines and run 20 or more drug smuggling planes so it's no problem to buy guns in Russia or other foreign countries and smuggle them in. Besides the ones in the US are not fully automatic. RPG's and grenades are never available from gun shows or dealers either.

In case you missed it - our gun laws are plenty strong - in fact they actually resulted in the arrest of individuals using illegal straw buyers to buy the guns in the first place so the laws must work.

Criminals get "all the guns they want" precisely because they DON"T follow the set of rules already on the books. AND they buy ans smuggle them in from other countries as well.

Relax regulation so they purchase as many guns as necessary to kill each other. heh heh

Note, law-abiding is where the law is present. For criminals, absence of law is present... So yes logic would say that creating laws and regulation would definitely solve the problem for people that don't follow the law... I hope you caught my sarcasm.

These are semi-automatic weapons. Again and as I have said before, cartels have plenty of money and the connections to buy automatic weapons in bulk, which they would have a hard time buying here...

So really I think that our law enforcement agencies should focus on the problems of Mexico... No I don't. Mexico's problems are far worse than simply weapons coming from the US...

No one is saying you can't buy your guns if it makes you feel good.... but given...

"The ATF reports a growing number of firearms transported to Mexico in recent years has come from Arizona and Texas, states where gun laws are less strict than in California.

In the past two years, violence in Mexican border cities has soared in response to a crackdown on drug cartels by the administration of President Felipe Calderon, with more than 6,000 drug-related homicides reported throughout Mexico last year and more than 1,300 this year so far."

Do you feel you need to rail against reporting of sales so the ATF can find out sooner who is amassing large numbers of weapons in short periods of time? Do you feel it is to much of an imposition on you to have to wait 5 days to buy military style weapons? Is this too large a burden for you to bear to help repress the thousands of deaths happening in Mexico? Many of them being police officers and Mayors and Judges. Where is your Human dignity, Your Christian compassion? Or are the people who live south of the border just not worth your concern? Are there lives not worthwhile enough for you to suffer a little inconvenience?

Where does it say you can only keep and bear a certain number of guns?

Apparently English isn't your first language?

Fair enough mate........I didn't 'edit'. However, 'Amurka''s spelling is a homage to your previous President, George the monkey.

Ooo you're sooo sophisticated and intelligent. Guess what we don't and never have lived in a DEMOCRACY, America is a Democratic (Constitutional) Republic. All of our Rights stem from the Constitution and the rights you like are no better than the rights I enjoy. See, once we lose one right then all of the others are weakened and will fall. The First Amendment is dependant on the Second Amendment and the Second dependant on the First. The first two Rights in the Bill of Rights are the strongest rights because they protect all of the others. Why is it that crime has increased in the UK since guns were outlawed? You Europee ons are so diluted with yourselves. The laws over there protect the criminal instead of the victim. If you try to defend yourself and kill a crook you go to jail. How much sense does that make? Now Jolly old England wants to outlaw knives. What a bunch of pansies.

I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see how purchasing a certain type of weapon is equal to being in the running for a Darwin Award.

I'd really love to know what European country you're from, because I'm currently studying over here in Germany, and I can tell you, some of your political processes currently happening are anything but "democratic."

Burlesconi, anyone?

That's funny, now ask Canada, Australia and Britain how the gun ban is working for them!! Gun related crime has shot up, especially home invasions where the owners are home. Canada admits that there has not been ONE crime solved by their registration and it's cost them a billion dollars in overruns with no results.

When crime figures are correlated for population AND reporting differences the US has lower gun crime rates than those three countries.

yes, and as we all know people all over the world are beating down the doors to get to your piece of crap continent.

Over there your are just a Euro - Peon

Enlightend euro peon huh? sounds like a piece of poofter boy eurotrash, that has really no clue on many things much less America ,but if i had to drink warm beer that tasted like monkey piss guess i would be in a foul mood as well...now as far as our 2nd amendment ,well at least we have one ,europe doesnt want its socialist society to posses dull paring knives let alone firearms....sucks to be EUw, i mean you, so slither back under what ever filth infested rock you slithered out from under....drink your warm yak piss beer...bath once a month...and wash your paws after you @!$%#e.

Who cares about the European. (YOU DONT LIVE HERE) I really do not care what you think about MY COUNTRY.

Don't worry... I am not going to yell at you EnlightenedEuropean. However, I would like to say this: the attitude you display is one of the reasons people fled Europe for "the Americas" in the first place. Enlightened is a relative term and I dare say you may not be as enlightened as you'd like.

Personally, I love Europe and Asia yet I feel sorry for you in so many ways. You claim to be a more enlightened society yet you still rely on America for protection against your more aggressive neighbors. If America was an isolationist society as is claimed, we would've left you to your devices long ago. The very people you are vilifying are those who you'd rely on to save you from tyrants within your homelands as the U.S. send more "peacekeepers" around the world than any other member of the United Nations.

Back to the original issue: firearms ownership in America. When the "people" (as in the citizenry) have the means to protect themselves from tyrants, those tyrants seek easier prey. Same for criminals. This is consistently proven. Are we perfect? NO. Are Europeans? NO. See? We're more alike than you realized. Best of all, HERE, you have the freedom to speak your mind. Last news report I saw today from Europe, the PARENTS of a person convicted (questionably) in Italy are being hauled in court for accusing police of abusing the girl. Even if she is guilty, she may have been abused and her PARENTS have NO RIGHT to speak of it!!! If that's enlightened Europe, I'll keep my passport in its case.

Exactly. In Yemen an AK47 goes for only $100. Likewise the AK cabe purchased in a number of other countries for far less than in the US. Besides that the US government gave 3 million M16's to Mexico. The story that the cartels are buying the guns from the US is a buch of bull.

Craig cars kill more deer than hunters every year. There are also more than 1.5 million deer caused vehicle accidents yearly in the US which cause billions of dollars in damages. How little you seem to know about deer. They are not defensless. I knew a woman who was walking in the woods with her daughter when they were attacked by a doe. Both were severely injured. A stag would have been even more dangerous.

Exactly. The anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment loonies are the ones causing this with their incessant devouring of Mexican drugs. See what it has done to their brains?

Or maybe we should legalize weed and tax it. Taking both the cartels money and adding to the states treasury.

Or maybe jail illegal alien employers for 3-5 years and watch the illegal alien flow dry up instantly. No job, No travel. No travel. less transport of items. But the last illegal alien amnesty that said employers would be controlled was Allan Simpsons deal. How well has that worked??Is he a Liberal Hippie??

Or Maybe stop our Ally in Afghanistan Karsai , from shipping Heroin though the cartels???

There's 3 things that could be done instead of attacking fellow Americans rights.

I am a strong supporter of gun control and find it insulting that you, REA40, assume all of us are liberal druggies. I've NEVER done any drugs, including marijuana. I'm not a liberal. I grew up in a family of hunters. But no one needs semi-automatic or automatic to hunt or do any target shooting. Not one member of my family would go after a deer with such a weapon because there would be no meat left. Grow up and get a civil thought in your head. This is a rule that should be put into place.

" But no one needs semi-automatic or automatic to hunt or do any target shooting."

Well PRM , time you started to talk about something you actually know something about. In target pistol matches there is rapid and timed fire . Rather hard with a bolt action or revolver action. The Target weapons are semi- automatic. Try googling Target pistol. There's a very few revolvers, but the VAST MAJORITY are semi- automatic.

> 14 years in pistol competition

"Not one member of my family would go after a deer with such a weapon because there would be no meat left."

I took my semi-auto AK-47 clone deer hunting, complete with five-round hunting magazine, and no scope. I got a nice, tasty deer, and there was plenty of meat. A 30-06 does much more damage. Let's stick to facts and logic.

JKinFL: Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't there been semi auto hunting rifles produced by Remington Browning , Ruger, and Mossberg?? Some for decades. Some long before AK's were an issue??? Often in 30-06, 6mm , etc??? Bow hunter, so not a area I excel at. But could swear I've seen some really old semi- auto hunting rifles.

PRM I you may not be liberal but you ARE closed minded. There are a lot of things in life no one "needs". No one needs a car that goes over 75mph (I think that's the freeway limit in AZ), no one needs a German Shepard why you can get a Yorkshire terrier, no one needs espresso if coffee is available, and the list goes on.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone argue they need an automatic weapon for hunting as you imply. You are like a vast majority of the other gun control advocates that try to mislead the general public. Automatic weapons are devices that continue to shoot while you continually engage the trigger. These are VERY hard to come by due to federal and state regulations and COST. The same automatic weapon that law enforcement can purchase for under 2000 would cost you or I 18-22000 and ours will be preowned (used). They are fun to shoot however so this goes back to needs and how people enjoy spending their time and money.

As far as hunting I personally have four primary firearms for hunting. My 10/22 is used for squirrels, I have a mini-14 for ground hogs and coyotes, a Remington 750 in .308 for deer in the woods, and a Reminton Sendero in .300 WinMag for deer in the fields (distance). Now by your thoughts I should only need the .300 WinMag since it is the only bolt action amonst my choices. I'm thinking there is going be a lot bigger piece of meat missing from my deer shot in the woods at 25 years than if I had used the .223 or .308.