The History and Future of Gun Laws

Gun laws have been some of the most debated issues in the history of the United States. The debate has been the balance between an individual’s right to bear arms and the government’s responsibility to prevent crime.

With the increased national debate on gun laws in recent history, we’ve had a lot of questions about the future of gun laws and how they might affect our customers and their emergency preparedness plans. That’s why we decided that it would be interesting to see where we’ve been - which might help us understand what the future might hold with gun laws.

While some hold that guns promote danger, others say they are necessary for protection and preparedness. Some key laws and acts have shaped the nation’s existing landscape of gun laws. Understanding our history helps us know where we currently stand with gun laws and what the future might hold. So, what are the gun laws? Take a look at some of the significant events below:

Signing of the Second Amendment1689
Many people trace America’s Second Amendment to the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The bill stated that it was a given right of Englishmen to protect themselves and to have arms “in their defence, suitable to their condition, and degree, and such as are allowed by law.”

Leading up to the Revolutionary War, the British responded to American’s increasing hostility by enacting a ban on the import of firearms and gunpowder. They even confiscated firearms in an effort to prevent an eventual uprising. This crystallized into the ideas of self-defense that eventually formed the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. The amendment reads: "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 can read this article to see what points were debated and changed during the ratification process.)

While the idea of the Second Amendment was still fresh in our country. A trial in Kentucky would shed further light on the subject. In Bliss v. Commonwealth, the courts struck down a Kentucky law which made it illegal for someone to carry a concealed weapon (a sword cane in this case). The ruling was unique in that it gave a broader reach to the definition of “arms.”

In Arkansas, the circuit court upheld a state ban on concealed weapons (State v. Buzzard). A Tennessee district court also hands down a decision upholding the state’s law prohibiting concealed weapons. (Aymette v. State)

One of the early battles with gun laws was whether or not slaves could possess guns. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union ... the full liberty … to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

In United States v Cruikshank, the Supreme Court clarified a section of the Second Amendment stating that the amendment “was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens” and “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”

In Miller v Texas, Franklin Miller was convicted for shooting a police officer with an unlicensed handgun. He sought for the conviction to be overturned based on the fact that he believed the Texas law banning unlicensed handguns was against his Second Amendment right. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the one in question.

In a case that challenged the legality of state’s requiring permits for concealed weapons, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t limit the freedom to bear arms. “The freedom of speech and of the press does not permit the publication of libel, blasphemous or indecent articles … the right of the people to bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” (You can read the full text of Robertson v. Baldwin here.)

New York passes a law making it illegal to carry a handgun without a permit. The Sullivan Law prompts the National Rifle Association (NRA), which up to this point had just been a hobbyist and sportsmen’s club, to enter the political arena. Gun laws were placed on the backburner with the beginning of the First World War.

The National Firearms Act passed in response to gangster culture during Prohibition. The law implemented a $200 tax on the making and transfer of automatic-fire guns, shotguns and rifles. The Act required a lot of paperwork to be filled out and be submitted to the Treasury Department.

The Federal Firearms Act is passed by Congress. Congress aimed to limit the selling and shipping of firearms through interstate or foreign channels. Anyone involved in those type of sales was required to obtain a license from the Secretary of Commerce. They were also required to record the names and addresses of anyone they sold guns or pistols to.

Gun Law Supreme Court1939
A ban on sawed-off shotguns is brought before The Supreme Court. The Court upholds the ban. In their decision, the Court implied that the Founding Fathers adopted the amendment to ensure the then-new federal government could not disarm state militias. (Read the United States. v Miller ruling here.)

While gun laws had taken a backseat during WWII and the Cold War, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy brought it back to the forefront. Within a week of his death, nearly a dozen firearm bills are introduced.

After the assassination of President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., Congress passed the Gun Control Act. The law calls for better control of interstate traffic of firearms. Lee Harvey Oswald, who shot the president, used a mail-order gun.

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Tax is changed to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. The bureau is put in charge of the enforcement of the Gun Control Act and nearly doubles in size.

The Firearm Owner's Protection Act is approved by Congress. The law prohibits felons from owning or possessing guns or ammunition. The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act is also passed. It prohibits the manufacturing, importing and selling of ammunition that can penetrate a bulletproof vest.

The Crime Control Act directed the Attorney General to establish drug-free and gun-free zones around schools. The changes made it a crime to possess or discharge a firearm in a school zone. It also outlawed the illegal assemble of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts. Many states, including California, bag the sale of firearms that have been defined as “assault weapons.”

United States Gun Laws1993
Congress passed the the Brady Handgun Violence Act, establishing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System gun dealers are to use before selling guns or pistols. The law is named after former White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was shot during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act becomes law. The law banned the manufacture, use, possession and import of 19 types of new semiautomatic weapons, including AK-47s and Uzis. The law expired in 2004.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, The Supreme Court upholds a lower court ruling, striking down D.C. handgun ban as unconstitutional. The District had passed a law in 1976 which outlawed the ownership of a handgun.

Current Debate & Future
Currently, many points are being debated including whether semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity clips should be banned. Some are arguing whether more legislation is needed to moderate the buying and tracking process - concealed carry weapons (CCW), mental health records in background checks, etc.

The current debate funnels down to how to reduce gun-related violence. While one side debates that a culture with prevalent guns promotes increased violence, others argue that violence will be stifled when more of the population owns a gun.

What do you think the future of gun laws hold? Comment below and let us know.

68 thoughts on “The History and Future of Gun Laws”

  • Freddie

    Great article. I think I'll pass this on to some friends who I've been having some gun debates with.

    Interesting insight on the case about the 2nd amendment being written to guard state's rights. But wouldn't that also translate to an individual's right to bare arms to protect themselves against a state and not just the federal government?

  • US Marine Fighting Tyranny
    US Marine Fighting Tyranny January 13, 2013 at 9:40 pm

    My Fellow Americans:

    The 2nd Amendment is not, or ever was about "self defense" or "sport shooting", those are secondary benefits.. it has one intent only,...

    The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall NOT Be Infringed, so when this gov't becomes despotic, treasonous and abusive of its people, and of the US Constitution, The People have the tools necessary to rid themselves of such treachery and can then provide new guards for their future security.

    ANY law that restricts ownership, or the Right To Bear Arms is Un-Constitutional and illegal.

    ALL American citizens have the right to own and bear firearms, no matter what their history or court manufactured label they have been branded with.

    The 2nd Amendment is a "1st Order, Self Preserving Right", and the only one we have.

    It is Self-Preserving in that it is the ONLY Unalienable (can NOT be taken away) Right, that can be used to protect itself, with force if necessary.

    It is First-Order, as it is the only Right that can be used to preserve all others, where there are no other rights that can used to preserve themselves from a depotic and treasonous gov''t, such as ours has now become.

    Loose the Right that permits Americans to protect themselves from a despotic gov't,.. and ALL other rights are then forfeit.

    Lose the right to protect yourself from a criminal cabal that has infiltrated and corrupted the gov't as ours has, then history has already proven that the next step are: 1) Extraction of remaining wealth, 2)Lose of all private property, 3) Arrest, dentention of political dissenters, 4) Mass graves.

    Current Body count of peoples who were murdered by their "peaceful" and "loving" gov'ts after they were disarmed,.. 180 MILLION dead. Exterminated by their own gov'ts.

    That is what the 2nd Amendment was designed to stop.

    JD - US Marines - Warning All Ammericans, the time is upon us to know this.

  • John

    The right to defend oneself, whether from a criminal street thug or a criminal thug government is a God-given right found in Scripture and cannot be taken away by the government. It is not a government bestowed right. It. Is the federal government's duty to protect our freedoms and not worry about our safety. Safety is a local and state government duty.

  • William

    Gun are a way to harm people. Old sayinf but true now as before, people harm people. Firearms should be regulated, by checks and balances, but not banned. This is our right to bear arms at stake!

  • Leon Joplin

    Then second amendment was written to protect the people from both domestic and foreign tyrants. It is also written to protect us from criminal elements. As our Southern border has gone poorly protected, it has allowed for radical elements to enter and set up cell groups. We will soon be at war with Iran who commands these groups. Our own government is becoming more tyrannical as demonstrated by the huge number of "executive orders". It will not be long before it will be necessary to defend our homes from invaders.

  • Barbara

    Thank you for posting this information, it shed a lot of light on how long the fight on guns has been going on.
    A mental back ground check would be a good idea but in the case of Adam Lanza this would not have helped being that the weapons were his moms.
    So do we need to go as far as to check everyone living in the household making sure no one within the household has mental problems?
    If we did go that far wouldn't be just as wrong to deny the person the right to having a gun for defense just because there is a person living in the household with mental problems?
    The problem wasn't that there were guns in Adams home the problem was that his mother didn't have them lock up were Adam couldn't get to them.
    While we all want a safe world our world would not be safe with making laws that forbid us to have the means to keep us safe.
    Taking away semi autos from law abiding citizens only makes us sitting ducks for criminals.
    Taking away our guns would only fuel the drug cartel and gangs, we would end up like Mexico in a very short time.

    This administration has not even been held accountable for the rifles they gave to the Mexican cartels and they want to do everything in their power to limit or take away our protection.

    I think we the people need to make our govnerment accountable first on this issue.

  • David P.

    Well said Barbara!! I have nothing to add other than to reinforce the biggest contributor to the CT shooting is that the mother's weapons were not properly secured. Obviously Adam being a total nut was the big problem. But if his mother's weapons were locked up it would have been much harder for him to get a gun(s) and probably wouldn't have been so heavily armed.

    I also agree that there should be a mental health background check and at least a 3 day "cooling" (waiting) period on all gun purchases.

  • jean

    Thank you for the history lesson. One problem with laws in general is the guys that break them do not care if it is right or wrong, legal or illegal. The saying that "one bad apple can't spoil the whole bunch" is not believed in DC. What better deterent to gun violence than not knowing if the other guy will take you down via a gun or some other weapon. Why did we become so dependent on "the government" as to give them the responsibility for our lives when the buracracy of said responsibility fails time and time again and a police man is at least 10 minutes away. It is all over by then. There is alot of data and facts regarding arming citizens, for example: Switzerland trains thier people and gives them a weapon and ammunition for life and has a VERY low crime rate, the country can also muster an army in hours without first worrying about arming them. There are many stories of the lower death rate of a criminal act when there was an armed person in the crowd. You have to look at the stories that do not make the "national news". Instead of sex education in schools, maybe we should be teaching gun safety and proficiency. Thank you for the forum.

  • CAPT Mike

    People have been voting with their wallets. I am a regular shooter and have not found any ammunition in the usual places I buy it in the past 1-2 weeks thanks to Obama/Biden and the current scare that, once again, liberals will attempt to infringe our 2nd amendment rights. Admittedly, I'm wanting to increase my own supply of ammunition because of this. Remember, without the 2nd amendment we are subjects and with it we are citizens.

  • Pepe1

    The pros and cons on gun control..what do you think control means? You know the media is busy brainwashing and scaring the people. Are you not tired of being in fear yet? That's the purpose. Are you not aware that all the shooters thus far is on drugs, controlled by them. It seems an issue of drugs not guns. Who is your enemy, that's a question you should be considering. NDAA is your enemy. Obama's kill list, is your enemy. And ask why would your own president have a kill list for those who oppose the laws that are illegally being stuck in your face? Against the people of the lost America. The media states on news, all gun owners should be shot! They should be arrested for that statement, and again, who is your enemy. Why is it all your rights are trashed, and no one cares? Well, when the enemy comes to your door, foreign troops, shooting your family, like in Iraq, who , what, are your protections? When the gangs roam the streets, get you straw and peas and start shooting, because that is all you got to protect yourself. It can't happen here, you say,, go back and read reality. Wake up. Educate yourself, and breath the fresh air of freedom for a change. Bless you all.

  • Barbara

    David, there is a waiting period for some. My husband who is retired Navy vet always ended up having to wait the four day waiting period.
    He also worked for an airline company and I thought it might have something to do with him having to wait, it was questionable in my mind why they made him wait every time.

    He resolved that though by getting his CHL but they put him through the ringer before they let him have it. They went all the way back to his teen years and he had been arrested for stealing a pack of cigs at 15 and he had to fill out paper work and send it to the Juvenal hall and the courts to prove it wasn't on the records. If it wasn't on the records then how did they find it in the first place, I thought that no record was suppose to be kept after you turned 18?
    I would love for my husband to hunt deer so we could have venison but he's the type that cannot stand the sight of blood, even if I get a tiny little cut he turns away and shivers.
    Don't let that make you question why he'd have a gun for protect though cause when it's your life or the bad guys life people will stand up to protect themself.
    I know I have been there once when a man tried to break into my home, I only had a 22 cal rifle but I was glad I had it and was even happier that I didn't have to shoot the guy, I waited on the phone till the police arrived, the guy never stepped foot inside but he kept trying to open the door, but I told the oprerator that if the guy gets in I'm shooting.

  • Linda

    "To conquer a nation first disarm it's citizens"
    -Adolph Hitler

  • Mike

    Please, please, please... Stop using the incorrect terminology of "clips". The correct verbiage is high capacity " magazines ". Great article other than that.

  • Doctor Ken

    Here's the real cause of gun violence--see Dave Grossman's interview on Glenn Beck and, search on school shootings. Mass murders are caused by operant conditioning, where people are rewarded for body counts while playing video games, and the violence-inducing side effects of psychotropic drugs. Calling for more mental health services will only push more drugs on kids who are overly medicated today.

  • DvlDoc

    US Marine Fighting Tyranny - OohRah
    As a retired Navy Chief Hospital Corpsman, I have been and will be next to you on the front line. I am glad to see that someone besides reads and understands the US Constitution. I made a comment on a local radio station this morning discussing NY's ban on weapons unless you are law enforcement. The 2nd amendment states that the local militia is made up of the citizenry, there we are all law enforcement officials and therefore NY'ers are exempted from the ban.

    God bless and thank you for your service.

  • Brenda

    You only need look at Australia & their current situation. Guns were confiscated from law abiding citizens & gun related crimes went up drastically, from burglary to homicide, etc. The criminals don't register theirs nor turn them in & when they know YOU don't have any, they are no longer afraid to break in & rob or kill you. Australia is warning American citizens to not take the path they mistakenly took. There is a great youtube video right now showing how their guns were taken & destroyed & how they regret letting it happen. We must do whatever it takes to defend ourselves, our families & our rights.

  • Rablerouser

    The debate by those who want to disarm the American citizen is not about the crime factor, because if it was they would be able to use their own records to back up their arguments. As you will see the factual Crime Data, ( most recent) shows the opposite than they portend.
    So they just want to disarm us so that they might fulfil the "transformation" that they started.
    Here are the facts, pass them on and send to your represenatives:

  • ddavelarsen

    Personally I believe those who are on the gun-control side of this debate will attempt to put in place a federal gun regustration database. This would in effect (my opinion), gut the Second Amendment simply because history tells us that gun regustration inevitably leads to confiscation. I believe that many gun owners would opt not to register their firearms, thereby rendering themselves felons. Should such a law actually pass through both houses of Congress, I'm sure the test of its Constitutionality would find its way to the Supreme Court. How the Court might rule is difficult to estimate, since it's been 'stacked' toward the 'left' during this administration.

    There is also the possibility that such a law could be put in place via presidential fiat, applying this president's prediliction for using "Executive Orders" to implement requirements that Congress would not pass.

    I read somewhere today however, and I'm in doubt whether this is true, that an "Executive Order" is not law and does not require anyone to obey it. I'm curious whether this is a fact. If so, then I'm less concerned about this administration's severe anti-gun stance. I "trust" Congress on these issues more than I do the president, for sure. Though "trust" and "the governement" are kind of an oxymoron to me...

    Very good article, thanks for presenting this issue.

  • Cheryl Adkins

    Since the debate is not about guns in general or hunting but about guns that are used only for the purpose of killing as many as possible in the shortest amount of time as possible and the ammo clips and drums designed to allow this weapon to do that, I don't know why on earth you guys act as if all guns are being banned. You are convoluting the debate with things that are indeed not part of the debate and making it about something it is not. It is not about a total gun ban but about a certain type of weapon ban. Do you need an assault rifle to hunt? No. By the same toke you are not allowed to own grenades, rocket launchers, or a myriad of other things because they are considered unsafe for the public and serve no purpose in ordinary life except to kill. The 2nd Amendment is clearly designed to allow ordinary citizens to be armed for the purposes of training for a state run militia(full time civilian, part time soldier) to be called on if needed for Federal duty. These men training for this state militia were required to own their own weapons. However since most people who own these weapons are not training for a state operated militia they would not fall under the 2nd amendment. Further more since the men in the state run militia are no longer required to provide their own weapons and in fact do not even take their weapons home at the end of training realistically the 2nd amendment no longer applies to them either. It was a great amendment for its time and highly applicable for their needs. But it has no real meaning or place in our modern era. Now it only serves to allow the NRA and the gun manufacturers to push their profit making agenda to muddy the debate waters and make everyone more fearful by spouting conspiracy theory and turning us against one another at time when we should be finding a solution to our violence problem instead of intensifying it with anger and fear.

  • Dana

    This is what the second amendment is for:
    I won't be giving up my guns, as this administration will undoubtedly require us to "rise up" against unlawful government at some point.

  • Jeff

    The future of firearms ownership in this country relies heavily on educating our youth on the responsible, safe and ethical use of firearms. Glorification of mass slaughter with weapons depicted in the very same glorification sends the wrong message to kids. Banning assault weapons is not the answer. We need to take control of our kids attitudes and values to prevent more senseless tragedies in the future. Punishing responsible people for the actions of a small minority is not justified in any case. If you ask the average school age child nowadays what the purpose of a firearm is they will almost always say " to kill people". This is a paramount social failure on the part of parents along with the liberal slanted public school system. This becomes a ticking time bomb when it involves a young person struggling with the stigma of mental health. We need to start promoting the value of integrity and individual responsibility and eradicating collectivist values if we want our children to have a truly free country in which to live.

  • Dan

    I'm from Wyoming and we have a distinct fact that is pertinent to the subject of gun restrictions. Wyoming has the most guns per capita and yet we have the least amount of gun crime in the nation. These states such as Illinois, Ney York and California should have a look at these Statistics.
    The real cause of these horrific tragedies can be traced back to the drugs these people are being put on by their so-called :"Doctors". These drugs have been prevalent in almost all of these incidents and it is about time we started going after the real cause, The Big Pharmacuticals and their cronies who only care about their profit and not the effect of their drugs on unwiiting people. Lets take the Prozack, Riddlin, Zoloft and others out of the ordinary prescription option for these Doctors and maybe we can solve most of the major gun attacks that happen because of these Pyco Drugs.


  • Bob C.

    So, Cheryl, you're saying "It's different this time". Someone once said something to the effect that "Those who fail to heed history, tend to repeat it".

  • W. bartel

    Here is a different point of view:

    A Public Apology to the People of Sandy Hook

    I attended a candlelight vigil in Ridgewood, New Jersey on Sunday evening. It was too brief for long speeches. I wanted to apologize publically for my part in the tragedy. The blood of innocent children is on my hands because I have failed to adequately participate in my democracy. This confession will not wash it away.

    Ever since sculptor Benny Bufano collected guns in San Francisco in 1968, melted them down and created St. Francis of the Guns to honor Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, I have been aware of the problems associated with an immature society overloaded with weaponry. I should have been doing my part in preventing future tragedies by forcing my government to do a better job. We are all required to improve society. I have not done enough. I apologize.

    For every child who is rejected by his peers, mistreated by family members or in some other way turned impotent, there is an instant antidote for the poison that eats at his psyche. For every disgruntled misfit, for every sort of low self image, for every ignorant cowardly creature there is a nearly instant cure at the local gun shop or gun show. No matter how pitiful he looks when he straps on a firearm, that anxious and often ignorant child, now inhabiting a man’s body, is freed from the terror of his low self esteem when he feels the cold steel of that instrument of death in his hand. His often ignorant and twisted opinions will now be listened to. He is finally someone to be reckoned with. This tormented coward now has the option to eliminate those who have rejected him with a little squeeze of his index finger. I should have done much more to prevent this guy from getting his fix at the gun show. I should have done more to get him help. I failed in not absolutely requiring my representatives to fund mental health instead of giving the wealthy more tax breaks. I have failed by allowing special interests to purchase my government, lock, stock and barrel, pun intended. I have failed by allowing my president and the cowardly legislature to avoid “hot button” or “third rail” issues. I apologize.

    I have also failed by not doing something to encourage parents to stop allowing their children to submerge themselves in the blood of video games. I did not need a commission of Ivy League psychologists with scores of studies at a to tell me that these games engender violent behavior in some children. I have common sense. I failed to trust my instincts. I didn’t speak out often enough about this. I apologize. Maybe I should have asked for a study in the probable inverse relationship of assault weapon ownership and real courage. Maybe there should be a study in the relationship of feelings of male sexual inadequacy and gun ownership in general.

    I should have been speaking and writing the moment I heard the NRA representative tell Piers Morgan that about twenty five percent of NRA membership opposes any kind of background checks. I should have been speaking and writing about the absurdity and irrelevance of the argument that “Guns don’t kill people, only people kill people”. This was my civic duty. I did very little and I apologize.

    My greatest failure in all of this is that I have been well mannered. I have been politically correct. I should never have asked folks to politely urge their representatives to “consider their points of view” concerning gun violence in America. That was a mistake. Instead I should have urged them to present the blunt choice of proper representation or removal from office. I should have explained that many of their representatives are self interested cowards and that they need to be made to fear their constituents more than they fear the NRA. I should have emphasized that these folks want to be reelected and will avoid anything that might hurt their chances. I should have talked more about the institutionalized political prostitution that sacrifices human life on an altar of political expediency for the purposes of reelection.

    On this one month anniversary of the death of our innocent children and educators in Sandy Hook I profoundly apologize to you and to the roughly 900 hundred people slaughtered by guns since that terrible day.
    William P. Bartel

  • Lance

    All I got to say is,all my guns combined have killed fewer people than Ted Kenedies car

  • Andy Bell

    Good historical and thanks. Some very articulate people on this forum with a good understanding of the constitution, the 2nd amendment, and its intent.
    In most public forums I believe less than half of what I read and am dubious of the part I may believe. One thing does hold true. Times are changing and "guns laws" will be as well. How much our political leaders accept as rational is hard to say as I trust them about as much as I do the criminals who use guns in their illegal trades. Rational is now a word, not an action and people such as I and most of you will eventually be looked at as the minority, the fringe, out of date and out of touch criminals who would support violence. IN fact, most of us understand that weapons are a line in the sand and we use them only as a last resort. Keep your powder dry and be prepared to stand on the line. We will see this nation turned upside down with idiocy, Government control and laws against us.

  • Tra

    Bad guys will always be able to obtain gins. No matter how difficult the Govment (spelled properly) makes it. I can het one from any thug off the street for $50. Making it illegal to own one is rediculous! I can't remember where I buried them all. With thousands of rounds of ammo. Sorry, stupidity is the only path Congress could take by starting the next great civil war. Bring it morons.

  • Sherry

    Thank you for the info. There are a lot of great responses here. I agree with most of them. There is a small town in Alabama that we visited a few years back, that requires that every household owns a gun. Every citizen there is allowed to carry a gun. In an antique shop we went in, the owner wore a western, double holster with 2 revolvers. When we asked him about it, we were told that since their gun laws were passed, they had zero crime. It was a very friendly, quiet town. We thought it was awesome. If criminals know the citizens of a town don't have guns, they are not going to stop at your door and knock. There is nothing wrong with our gun laws the way they are. I believe in our right to own guns as stated in our Constitution. These rights are sacred to me. I went through a CCW course and own my own handgun. I now feel safe when my husband is working and I am alone out on our country place. Look at the history of other countries that went the gun-band route. We can't afford to let out government do that to us. We are all accountable for what happen if we allow our government to do this. Everyone, please wake up!

  • sandy

    Great article. Controlling is good BUT what about the video games that teach children how to shoot at people. The new generations need to learn pointing a gun at a person is not the right thing to do. To pull the trigger without the person being concerned with the outcome is beyond bad. Games need control. Kids need control.

  • Rodney

    I think one of the most obvious and overlooked points to all this centers on the fact that, life is inherently dangerous! At first glance it may not seem to be the case, but that is merely a thin veneer, reinforced mainly through our comfortable lifestyle. Any of us at any time can die in a great number of ways; slip and fall in the shower, driving to work, choking on a piece of food, electrocution, animal attack, over exposure to severe weather conditions and so on!

    There are many tragic events in life, and sadly yes…even to innocent bystanders as a result of firearms! However bad it affects us personally, and no matter how badly we may feel…the truth of the matter is that you cannot regulate away the danger nor the possibility of death completely.

    You can pass a million laws and regulations, but it won’t stop it from happening, because those individuals within our society, with the intent to do harm to others will find a way to transgress, as they don’t care to follow the laws or regulations as we do. So the excess of regulations only serve to diminish, encumber and encroach on the rights of the law abiding citizens! That is not to say that we shouldn’t have some basic controlling factors, but that shouldn’t be allowed to circumvent and remove our rights all together!

    Now I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to deduce that our Government is fully cognizant of this fact, and exploits it to serve their own agenda, which is to disarm the law abiding citizens. It is a systematic and incremental approach to what is an obvious inevitability! It is so reminiscent of the “How To Cook A Frog” approach! For those that may not be familiar with this…
    “There is an old story that says you can’t kill a frog by dropping him into boiling water. He reacts so quickly to the sudden heat that he jumps out of the water before he is hurt. But if you put him in cold water and then warm it up gradually he’ll end up cooked without knowing it!” Human nature is much the same. People are as tolerant as frogs. Take their freedom overnight and you will have an immediate revolution. But steal it from them gradually and you can paralyze an entire nation.
    Lynn Johnson

    A little additional food for thought!
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    --Ben Franklin

    From bondage to spiritual faith;
    from spiritual faith to great courage;
    from great courage to Liberty;
    from Liberty to abundance;
    from abundance to complacency;
    from complacency to apathy;
    from apathy to dependence;
    from dependence back into bondage."

  • W. Bartel

    Paste this link on your broswer to see an article from the NYT showing that people on both sides of this argument can agree on one important thing.

    Bill Bartel

  • Patriot

    @william bartel: Try googling: SANDY HOOK HOAX - dude. Then you can retract your touching letter. BTW - how much do trolls make per post?

  • wideawkeonw

    Let me thank you first for partially accurate info. Then let me say this: FYI: 1. In case you have been in a coma for almost 50 YEARS - Oswald did NOT "kill kennedy" as the entire world knows. For decades, it has been common knowledge that the cia + bush sr. + lbj + mossad all had a hand in placing the 3 shooters that killed kennedy, for messing with the zionist controlled federal reserve. To assert that oswald did JFK in this article really discredits your info somewhat. 2. The sandy hook shooting was a confirmed HOAX, just like the Aurora, "giffords," and VA Tech shooting GUN GRAB HOAXES.

    To wit: ALL the following FACTS have been confirmed and well-documented: - Don't believe it? Then research it yourself, then you will KNOW the TRUTH -

    1. United way “donation page set up on 12.11.12 – 3 days BEFORE the fake “shooting.”- Captured on google archive search. (source naturalnews[dot]com) etc etc.

    2. “RIP Soto” facebook page set up 4 days days BEFORE the fake “shooting.”

    3. AP reporters caught tweeting about the sandy hook massacre 3 days BEFORE the fake “shooting.”

    4. Empty ambulances and fire trucks blocked in so they could not approach or exit the school. See youtube "YT"

    5. No teachers and no kids running around. No sign of chaos that would certainly happened in REAL shooting.

    6. The same female actor who posed as the “attorney” for the actor with the temporary red hair [who posed as James Holmes” in the Aurora FAKE “shooting”], is the IDENTICAL woman who now poses as the “mother” of one of the killed children a/k/a "Laura Phelps." This woman is the exact same actor in BOTH hoaxes. (Search Jennifer greenberg Sexton and Laura Phelps)

    7. Men in fatigues being arrested in the forest but then put in the front of police cars to disappear later. On of these was identified as a swat team member from a neighboring area.

    8. No wounded. Huhhhh? 27 killed and zero wounded? Hmmmm.

    9. A laughing coroner and "parent" actors getting into character just before the interviews. Watch the sandy hook fake father vid on youtube.

    10. No tears from the actor "parents" - just kenyan obama-style croc "tears.".

    11. School nurses who never existed on the payroll.

    12. 4 of 7 “teachers” listed as being killed, did not exist on the school rosters.

    13. People claiming they knew the shooter’s mother as a teacher but she was never a teacher.

    14. Neighbors lying about sheltering children for 30 minutes without calling police or dialing 911.

    15. School was completely videotaped, yet government refuses to release videos, just like the fake Aurora shooting hoax, and the mossad/us gov inside job 911 attack on the pentagon on 9.11.01.

    Just as with Aurora, the sandy hook GUN GRAB hoax has been fully exposed. Even the temporary bright orange haired clown the cia put up as the "James Holmes' shooter in Aurora, is positively NOT the same guy as "holmes." They dyed his hair orange so that the people would not immediately notice this fact, two different faces = 2 different actors - hmmmmm. No videos of Aurora - hmmmm.

    Cops inspecting for "explosives" on a lift outside the "shooters" 3rd floor apartment [after he felt bad and turned himself into a friendly SWAT team in the parking lot, and warned them he had wired his apartment with all these explosives] wearing: short sleeve shirts [watch it on you tube] hmmmm. Ever seen cops wear short sleeve shirts when approaching bombs that could easily be detonated with a $10 motion detector, including motion OUTSIDE a window? Hmmmmm.

    Not a SINGLE video of the "48 wounded" frantically running from the theater dripping with blood or being rushed out carried by loved ones - hmmmm. hmmm X 1,000.

    Got any doubts, research it yourself.

    The future of of control, a/k/a free tickets to one of the 800 + DEATH camps, is simple: if this criminal rogue, shadow "government" temporarily run by an invading kenyan bilderberg appointee - even TRIES to take a single gun, they will meet an enraged and unyielding force of scores of millions of heavily armed, locked and loaded, Patriots, with one mission: KILL the gun grabbing enemy at your door, then take it to the streets...

    Think of a small worm being dropped on a 4 foot high fire ant nest. We are the ants - they are the little worm...

    We WILL get America back in the next 12 months, that is for GD sure... Bring it. Molon labe.

  • Leon

    "Shall not be infringed"
    Means that I swear on my sacred honor I will not surrender my arms; So Help Me God.
    I swore an Oath to, "protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic" This oath is still in effect.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Leon, Oathkeeper

  • Sonny

    Right to bare arms is the right to posses the same weapons our military and police have. I am not talking about weapons of mass destruction because not every member of the military has a weapon of mass destruction. When you regulate you keep tract of where this weapon is and then you know where to go to seize it when tyranny is at hand. Hitler did the same thing and we know that six million Jews were killed because they could not defend themselves. Obama believes you should take advantage of every situation including dancing on the graves of innocent children murdered by an insane individual. More of these killing will take place and more and more people will be willing to give up their rights thinking they will be saved by the government. With all the controls on guns and police were these children at Sandy Hook saved?

  • Judith F

    A thank you to Cheryl Adkins for bringing this discussion down to earth a bit, with more rational and accurate comments directly related to the Second Amendment. Some of you talk about fear-mongering, but many proponents of being able to own any type of gun out there are doing the same thing. No one who wants stricter gun laws is even talking about taking away the Second Amendment, or your right to own a gun. Each decade, with the advance in weapons' technology, the argument to have such weapons becomes more fervent. Many talk of such things as "operant conditioning" or "Obama's kill orders" or "despotic and treasonous governments," yet, at the same time, they see themselves as patriotic, willing to go out and kill for America in its many wars, regardless of whoever is Commander-in-Chief. Be patriotic, fight for America against all its evil enemies, yet keep talking about the tyranny of the U.S. Govt. and how they are out to get us. Don't you find this a bit confusing or hypocritical? Which way do you want it, I ask? Then what "freedom" have all U.S. troops, alive and dead, been fighting for?
    Since we love categorizing folks, and maybe you've guessed, I'm a progressive. Who's been targeted more fiercely in all of America's history more than political and human-rights activists? Some of you go back in history, as any reasonable person should do. But what about the history of those who really fought, inside this country, for better working conditions, the right to an 8-hour day and a weekend, safety on the job, doing away with child labor, women's right to the vote. Through all decades, these are the folks who've been on the front lines, fighting injustice and tyranny, and being on the receiving end of the wrath of local and federal authorities, whether by beatings, pepper-spraying, jailing and harassment for life. Look at what they did to members of the Occupy movement. Do you think if Occupy folks had carried weapons and assault rifles, they'd even be around to carry on their work? Do you really think all your guns and weaponry would really work against the might of the U.S. military, with their drones, troops, tanks, sound-blasters, fighter jets, bombs, local and state police, etc.? Why don't you fiercely stand up against America's use of such weaponry against helpless civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in their wars for resources and hegemony, where the U.S. military has killed many tens of thousands to protect our "freedom." Freedom for what? Freedom for who? How have we advanced any such freedom? Why not stand up and help stop these endless wars that feed into this country's obsession with violence, as well as kill or maim our dedicated soldiers, and the exaggerated stories and video games that keep America's young people enamored of and numbed to violence and killing.
    I think we have a greater threat that our guns will end up killing each other, rather than stopping any tyranny. If law and order break down, and a threat does come to our citizens, many will start pointing them at each other and not any government authority, or both. Just as now, people will kill their neighbors, or form militias and those militias will start vying for authority and start killing each other. There will always be an "us" and "them." Let's have reasonable discussions about America's obsession with violence, and the increased outcry for owning more guns and more sophisticated and fast-killing weapons. I lived in Lebanon during a good part of their civil war. I saw Lebanese citizens acquire vast caches of weapons of all kinds, missile launchers, tanks, you name it. They managed to keep that war going, day after day, from 1975 to 1982, They killed tens of thousands of Lebanese citizens.
    Here's a link to an article from The Washington Post about what occurred in Australia after their gun reduction program went into effect:
    So sorry for the long comment! Cheers All!
    Judith F.

  • Aware

    @ddavelarsen - let me explain. barry a/k/a "barack" is NOT a president. Just search for: "fake kerning on obama birth certificate." "obama birth certificate opened in adobe illustrator." He is a PROVEN illegal invader from Kenya, appointed by the bildergerg felons. Therefore he has ZERO authority to sign anything, and every order he signs, may as well be signed by daffy duck.

  • Judith F

    Mr. Bartel, to resort to the denial of reality does probably not even dignify a response. If you really believe the killing of children at Sandy Hook didn't happen, why don't you visit there and talk to some parents and school officials? You don't need to take the word of others.

  • Jibbs

    You left out, "The Dick Act of 1902"
    It's really sad how many people are unaware of this law that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

  • Jibbs

    Cheryl Adkins wrote,

    Since the debate is not about guns in general or hunting but about guns that are used only for the purpose of killing as many as possible in the shortest amount of time as possible and the ammo clips and drums designed to allow this weapon to do that, I don’t know why on earth you guys act as if all guns are being banned. You are convoluting the debate with things that are indeed not part of the debate and making it about something it is not. It is not about a total gun ban but about a certain type of weapon ban. Do you need an assault rifle to hunt? No. By the same toke you are not allowed to own grenades, rocket launchers, or a myriad of other things because they are considered unsafe for the public and serve no purpose in ordinary life except to kill. The 2nd Amendment is clearly designed to allow ordinary citizens to be armed for the purposes of training for a state run militia(full time civilian, part time soldier) to be called on if needed for Federal duty. These men training for this state militia were required to own their own weapons. However since most people who own these weapons are not training for a state operated militia they would not fall under the 2nd amendment. Further more since the men in the state run militia are no longer required to provide their own weapons and in fact do not even take their weapons home at the end of training realistically the 2nd amendment no longer applies to them either. It was a great amendment for its time and highly applicable for their needs. But it has no real meaning or place in our modern era. Now it only serves to allow the NRA and the gun manufacturers to push their profit making agenda to muddy the debate waters and make everyone more fearful by spouting conspiracy theory and turning us against one another at time when we should be finding a solution to our violence problem instead of intensifying it with anger and fear.

    You are a perfect example of public schools, and you say the Constitution no longer matters, how about if we curb you free speech?
    BTW, you might want to make paragraphs next time, something else you missed in school

  • Cal

    @ Barbara who brought up Lanza. Did you watch all the corporate news reports? Did you notice the changes made in the later reports? If not, do the research.

    @nd Amendment, lets go with those who know:

    "… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Article on the Bill of Rights

    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee

    "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " Thomas Jefferson {Notice that he said "states" - the Bill of Rights Puts a 100% Limit on the Federal gove - they cannot lawfully alter one thing in it. The...

    Preamble to the Bill of Rights (says it quite clearly)

    Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
    RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
    ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
    Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

    Alexander Hamilton; "... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped"

    "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense..." Alexander Hamilton

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Plus:
    "The great object is that every man be armed." and
    "Everyone who is able may have a gun."

    "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …". Samuel Adams

    St. George Tucker (the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over 40 cases. He cn be found in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era."); “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.“ and
    "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction...
    {I know a lot are not aware of this, but OUR government is NOT ALLOWED to keep a standing army more then two years - we have had one for MUCH longer}

    William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" 1829 - adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

    Andrews v. State 1871 explains, this "... shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."

    Tench Coxe; "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
    "Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

    U.S. v. Emerson: "Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized."

    Nunn vs. State: "'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right."

    State v. Chandler235 and State v. Reid. These cases also recognize an individual right to arms.
    "Bans on carrying, but not ownership of, non - military type weapons are constitutional, since the term "bear arms" has a military connotation and thus pertains to military-type arms."

    Aymette v. State: said that "the state guarantee was of a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense, in order for the people, as a body, "to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution." Thus the court concluded that the right was applicable only to arms "usually employed in civilized warfare".

    Judge Cooley: "only the government can create a well-regulated militia, and hence a right limited to such a group would be of no value as a check upon government.
    Practical Results of "Tyranny will be impeded by an armed people" If we take the second definition, then the core of the individual "civic right" concept appears to be that individual persons have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of - to take the words from Aymette v. State- "to keep in awe those who are in power". Just what legislation would pass this constitutional standard?
    Certainly not the ban on civilian ownership of post-1986 machine guns. Those "in power" have millions of these at their disposal. And certainly not proposals for bans on "assault weapons," their semiautomatic brethren. The civic rights only view might, like the hybrid right view, permit banning a weapon because it was too innocuous but not because it was too powerful.
    Firearm permit systems? The concept of making a check upon governmental abuses contingent upon obtaining a governmental permit does seem of dubious utility, and it is unlikely to have been within the contemplation of the Framers.
    Registration? This might be questionable. There is little to be said for registration alone as a crime fighting tool, but handing the government a convenient list of which citizen owns which firearms would certainly undermine any purpose of deterring tyranny".

    "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson
    ”For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security”.

    ”A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country”. James Madison

    I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason

    "Under every government the last resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people ... entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.
    And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." Samuel Adams

    Cockrum v. State: "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense... Alexander Hamilton

    “Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? ... A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men.” Daniel Webster

    “Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” Daniel Webster

    "We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln

    So you should be able to see that the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights (which no one in our government can legally distort, change, or do away with) says that all people who want to may have ANY arm, and as many of them as they can afford. Why? Because the PEOPLE ARE the MILITIA.

    "The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations..... The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally... It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations... that all will be done for the best." Thomas Jefferson

    "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe" John Adams - 2nd Pres.

    "The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them." Samuel Adams

    Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 breaks the militia down in three groups. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are:
    the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia,
    the unorganized militia and
    the regular army.
    It further states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

    Hope this helps everyone.

  • W. bartel

    I think you may have directed your post to the wrong person. I am the person who wrote the apology to Sandy Hook. Shortly after I posted it another reader responded telling me to read about a "hoax" and implying that I am a "troll" whatever that is.

    Bill Bartel

  • W.Bartel


    I should have added that I have been in Sandy Hook many times over the past 10 years. There is a very nice and very tiny diner in the center of town where I have often enjoyed breakfast. I am also a veteran and a progressive. I support the 2nd amendment in a sensible way. As far as the conspiracy theories are concerned I am much too old for that stuff. Regarding the relative merits of the various arguments presented I have a tough time maintaining an open mind becaause I have made legal arguments in court for 40 years as an attorney. I like arguments based on evidence not anxiety. I am also trained in psychology and have taught college students for many years. Therefore I have a lot of patience with young confused people and tragically ignorant people. They have a right to say what they will and I support that right. Imagine my surprise when I read that you thought I was a person who would deny this awful tragedy!


  • Larry Henry

    Nice review.

    While our politicians villify the NRA and pass more meaningless gun laws, Sandy Hook quietly places armed police in their schools.


  • ddavelarsen

    Good discussion, though as one would expect for a forum on a prepper site, somewhat one-sided. To Cheryl, W Bartel and Judith, I commend your comments, which I don't agree with. But considering the rather gun-friendly tone of the comments here, it took courage for you to speak your convictions. Thank you.

    As to why I disagree with your comments, it's pretty simple and has been summed up previously - the progressive element in our government is incrementally stifling our Second Amendment, with an intended end of disarming all citizens. They're clever, and if we're not rigorous in our fight back, we will indeed lose our right to offer resistance to tyranny.

    Cheryl and Judith, you both have only seen the most pronounced aspect of the current argument in Congress - regarding so-called "assault weapons." First, there's no such thing. This is a term coined by Feinstein et al in an effective effort to demonize certain rifles that have an aggressive appearance. The rifles to which they refer have no more capability to inflict rapid fire than my 22. In fact, my 22 is more reliable than my AR.

    And the "assault weapon" ban is not the only legislation being presented. More insidious is the resounding and repeated call for a national registration database of all firearms owned by Americans. This must be prevented at any cost! As history shows, gun registration is inevitably followed by gun confiscation. At which point we cease being citizens and become subjects. That's not my America.

    W Bartel, your apology to the victims and families of Sandy Hook was heart felt but I suspect somewhat cynical as well. You don't have anything to apologize for. You didn't steal the guns used to kill so many innocents; you didn't pull the trigger. By the way, one correction - that insane child didn't acquire his rifle at a gun show - he stole if from his mother, who he promptly killed in her sleep. Many have pointed accusing fingers at her too, for not keeping her guns locked away from her disturbed child. That was a fatal mistake for too many that day, and should be a lesson for all gun owners - be cognizant of who may have access to your guns, and take rational measures to prevent them falling into the wrong hands.

    I've had guns stolen from me, and believe me it is a horrifying thought to think they may be used in a crime at some point. I changed my attitude about securing my guns after that event. (By the way, it was an "inside job." A family member knew where I kept them and let one of her friends into the house to steal them. He was never charged with the theft.) Most of the guns used in crimes were stolen or purchased illegally. Criminals don't generally attempt to purchase guns legally, though of course there have been exceptions. That crazed man in Aurora CO apparently purchased his guns legally, despite his psychologist's repeated warnings of the danger he represented to society.

    I guess the summation of my argument here is the same one you've heard every day of this debate: Guns are not the bad guy. Guns are inert, mere machines, totally without volition.

    At least one smart commenter noted that living is dangerous. There are numerous ways for each of us to meet our fate every day. There is no guarantee of safety, and limiting the ownership of firearms is simply ludicrous. There are plenty of statistics that show a prevalence of public carry of firearms reduces crime locally. That makes sense; criminals are inherently cowards, and will not risk the chance of return fire if they think it might exist. Lawful carry of firearms is a GOOD thing, and we need more competent, sane citizens willing to accept the responsibility of going armed in this country. If that were the norm, events like Sandy Hook would be very few and far between.

    I'm Dave, and I am aware and I vote.

  • wideawakeone

    @ Judith - the ONLY thing here that does not deserve a dignified response, is your asinine and msm TROLL comment/ allegation that oswald killed JFK. BTW; [whatever] "does not even deserve the dignity of a response" is taken from the msm traitor script you seem to know well. It is a classic media shill response.

    Sorry, unless you are: 1. incoherent from smoking crack or 2. just another futile cia shill TROLL, like the hilarious apologist actor who should go by "ole billy bob bartel" - upon even a cursory glance at the evidence - you simple cannot deny that sandy hook was a total HOAX. TRY READING THE FACTS!! How much does the government pay you "judith," if that is even your real name?

    Who do you think you government traitors are fooling? WE KNOW THE GD TRUTH - DEAL WITH IT!!!

  • burberry online

    Aside from its heritage significance, it also has a sentimental value as it is a constant remembrance of the glory of the yesteryears. Indeed, let's bring back the oldies but goodies to our lives and enjoy the retro fashion.

  • wideawakeone

    @ billy bob bartel - I suppose you think oswald killed JFK. You forgot to apologize for the kennedy mossad hit dude. Tragically ignorant? Is that how you describe yourself and your little pro-gov apology ruse rant? Young? Not me dude. Confused? Not me dude - far from it. You forgot to suggest: delusional - which is a great characterization of yourself, or perhaps you are simply another quintessentially brainwashed msm drone, or as I already asserted, more likely a troll.

    The ONLY theory about sandy hook is the incessant well-oiled Josef Goebbels school of journalism BS the zion-ist owned media has been shoving down our throats. See my previous post for overwhelming proof this was just another gun grab hoax, and NO ONE was "killed" other than the usual Victim; the TRUTH, which we managed to resuscitate on the new thing called the internet. The same internet, a/k/a irrepressible TRUTH device, that will inevitably cause ALL of the criminal despot traitors who sell out OUR Constitution, as well as ALL who inflicted immeasurable harm v. the People: tried for treason, convicted, sentenced to death, and then the FUN part: hung by there fat greedy necks until they are dead, all on live TV of course, for our viewing pleasure, as we eat some pizza at one the coming hundreds of thousands of: freedom parties we will enjoy in the NEW AMERICA, where it will be a Constitutional Amendment that ALL able bodied men and women will be required to not only train with weapons, but to also own one or more.

    Did you mention the T word - THEORY? Well to edify you just a tad on the connotation of that little word:

    Like the 19 skinny guys with 1/2 inch razors who hijacked 4 planes THEORY - even though not a single plane was used in the usa/cia/mossad 911 attacks, while the us military was asleep for over 80 minutes as a "hijacked 757 plane" was heading toward the District of Criminals and finally avoided the scores of underground defensive missile batteries which have been in place around the pentaCON since the 60's, to "crash: into the building with magical "folding wings" which left a 12.25 foot wide hole - let's just call it what is was: a missile FIRED from one of those defensive batteries.

    Or the Oswald single shot rifle/magic bullet/physics defying bullet THEORY which defied every law of kinetic energy by causing a force of energy that did the impossible by reversed itself back to the same direction as that which caused the energy, i.e. JFK's head going backwards in the precise same direction that the magic oswald bullet was "shot" through the trees at the moving target, all 3 shots in a time span that was simply impossible to perform with the cia planted rifle. Even as a 13 year old boy who was raised with GUNS - I knew the oswald story was a total lie, especially when the ruby THEORY whacked the pasty Oswald in the DPD in front of legions of paid off cops.

    Or the lunar landing THEORY obviously filmed on a set, which explains multiple shadows coming from multiple light sources, when there would have ONLY been only ONE shadow produced by only ONE light source - earth - had there actually been a real lunar landing.

    Or the Gulf of Tonkin THEORY that helped the zion-ist-owned us government MURDER over 56,000 US Soldiers for NOTHING, other than sheer profit for their despicable corporations.

    Or the 6 million jews killed by the Nazis THEORY. One of the greatest, most vile and offensive fairy tales ever told: the HOLOHOAX, or the anne frank diary THEORY written partially in ball point pens, miraculously 6 years before they were even invented. Little annie was sharp fictitious jewish girl huh? Too bad she did not patent the ball point pen. Then her "family" would not have had to sell a few cartoon books about her "death" huh?

    Or the THEORY of how the OKC City bombing was done by a guy who just somehow forgot to get a tag for his stolen getaway car, after allegedly masterminding the massive cia planted bomb at the murrah building. Too bad there is a MISSING 30 seconds of the truck after it pulled up and before it "blew up." Kinda like a missing 12 minutes of tape, a la nixon.

    How about the THEORY that suddenly thousands of planes are NOT spraying poison and creating clouds which last all day, on what should have been a clear day, and these are just millions of worldwide brand new, extended miles long "vapor" contrails - a/k/a chemtrails? That is a fun theory huh?

    If America wants ludicrous, insane, illogical, bizarre, nonsensical THEORIES, a/k/a the "news" - we need simply to turn on the paid zion-ist traitor shills who have infected the print/tv/radio media for that past 70 + years in this corrupt country, on fox/cnn/hln/msnbc/abc/cbs/nbc, or shall we simply consolidate them into one network: "the TSN": or better said - the THEORY Shill Network?

    Etc, ad infinitum. Get all that "lawyer?"

    I, as with SCORES OF MILLIONS of real Americans, deal in CONFIRMED REALITY of irrefutable and utterly incontrovertible FACTS, not your microcosm of delusion, deception, and blind allegiance to a Goebbels-like propaganda machine.

    Oh before I forget, in your honor billy bob, I wish to "apologize to the human race for the chinese cats who invented gunpowder, HAHAHA. Did I get my "apology" right billy bob bartel?

  • wideawakeone

    @judith who wrote: "Do you really think all your guns and weaponry would really work against the might of the U.S. military, with their drones, troops, tanks, sound-blasters, fighter jets, bombs, local and state police, etc.?"

    Answer: yep.

    Most, if no not all of OUR military will immediately defect to the winning side of the Constitutionalists, as will most LEO's.

    2. I can take out any ANY drone with a .22 LR, or maybe a Remington 700 with a 10 X scope. Ditto that for ANY enemy chopper tail rotor. Ditto that for ANY enemy jet fan assembly. Heading my way after the war starts? Enemies of the Constitution better 1st say goodbye to their families....

    Hope that you and your co-troll billy bob bartel thoroughly understand your little suggestion that 120,000,000 should surrender or never fight for OUR freedom, since we are so woefully poorly armed, has fallen upon deaf ears.

    The very fact that ANYONE is telling us how our tyrannical corrupt zion-ist controlled rogue homicidal government can easily out-gun us, then kill us all, IS THE VERY REASON THEY WILL NEVER GET OUR GUNS! GOT IT judith troll?

    And at the end of the 2nd American Revolution, it WILL be just like the 1st one: ANY citizen who is not a criminal [like trolls are] shall have the explicit Constitutional right to bear ANY arms, including missiles, grenades, flamethrowers, bazookas, machine guns, SAM's and of course our fave: .223's. So in the future, no fool shall suggest we cave and prepare to surrender our Freedom and lives, b/c they will outgun us.

    Oh, and one other thing the Constitutionalists can each kill with our little pea shooters: 100% of the scum-bag traitors out there, who subverted us and the Constitution, and aided and abetted our enemies in any form, including moral suasion. Have fun when the war starts! We sure are gonna - XXXOOO

  • NavyVet

    I see some have fallin for the media incorrect Terminology of "High Capacity Magazines". Let it be known that this is not true since the firearm was made to fit this magazine it is really a standard capacity magazine.

  • Woody

    Would you surrender your 2nd Amendment Rights to the government, in exchange for a Government promise to protect you and your loved ones from all harm?

    In light of the fact that criminals, by their very actions, are NOT limited by laws, rules and regulations...would you allow Government to limit the means by which to defend yourself and your loved ones? How do you stop a gang of thugs from setting your home ablaze with your loved ones in it, with a cell phone? Total gun control in that scenario...

    Just shining the light on hoplophobic hoopla...

  • Woody

    PS - Don't waste your time responding to Leftists, trolls, or low-information people who want further restrictions or an outright ban on firearms.
    Chances are very good that they're well-protected elitists, or at best, have never been a victim of a violent crime. It's best said that, in light of the steaming piles of BS coming from Washington and the media in the last 4.5yrs., to want to trust anything THEY say and want to do with regards to YOUR responsibility of defending yourself and/or your loved ones against criminals, be they lone wolves or packs like those running the government, is sheer lunacy. They're best left to wallow in their own ignorance...

  • ken

    gun control works hittler proved it

  • Jerry

    Enough laws are already on the books...Inforce the one's we already have and not issue any new one's..

  • Bob P

    Sadly the true issue has been missed but the irony of the situation lives on. That is the true sting of the event and no amount of condolence will ever bring the dead back. The system that has become the mainstay of American politics would have never stood when the constitution was written. Each year it becomes more and more flawed, there are many reset events and most should be evident to the public eye. The actions that are necessary have some of the most undesirable outcomes for all involved. Unfortunately the current government has become lost in its own bureaucracy and has also lost sense of its true purpose and course. Providing for the welfare of the people doesn't mean providing the people with a means of existence for a lifetime, it doesn't mean that the faux elections where millions of people are ignored and cartoon characters are elected as politicians or poorly qualified candidates are chosen to represent a party. Politicians should be regulated, terms limited and benefits of office limited to their time in office. How does this have anything to do with gun control?
    It is a part of a process like so many already in progress. There is an economic plan out there and the health care act is a part of it, in short bankrupt the country, make sure that there can be no armed insurrection, eliminate term limits and make all of the people in the country dependent on the government. Now, not all of these steps need be in any order just implemented for true internal subversion.
    "Only the educated are truly free" was the best fortune I ever found in a fortune cookie. The problem is Education is a subjective term. Because you have knowledge it doesn't mean that you are educated and because you have a formal degree it doesn't mean that you are educated. Education is a combination of knowledge from formal sources, informal training, personal experience, and the ability to learn from others mistakes and successes and apply it to everything that you do as a person. Universal truth, right and wrong are not shaped by religion, politics, money, or personal beliefs and it is how laws were meant to be written, as a guide for populations.
    Unfortunately there are people with mental health issues and people who don’t take their jobs as custodians of their own future too seriously. When the right combination of a few more volatile ingredients are added you have mass shootings, “innocent lambs” are slaughtered by “mad men” and then we as a nation mourn an event that could have been prevented if weren’t in denial. We all need to step up get the job done, be held accountable and become hated for doing whatever is necessary to restore order to the American dream without destroying its founding principles.

  • Ron

    Why can't we learn from history? Proibition didn't work, Hitler proved what can happen to an unprotected people. WAKE UP AND SMELL WHAT IS BEING SHOVELED!

  • Dale Cobb

    Cheryl Adkins, everything you said in your post shows a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution, and specifically the Second Amendment. When the founders wrote the Bill of Rights, they believed that the state militia was EVERYONE. They did not get together and have official training, the people were left to train on their own. In addition, there is not a single right protected by the Constitution that requires showing a need for it.

    Rosa Parks did NOT need to sit at the front of the bus. YOU do not need freedom of speech.

    Any restriction of firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment: "shall not be infringed".


  • Dale Cobb

    To those who say that tyranny can never happen here: 130,000 Japanese Americans who were rounded up into camps during WWII would probably disagree with you.

  • woody

    Cobb wrote - 130,000 Japanese Americans who were rounded up - by a Democrat

    Party of physical slavery? Democrat.
    Party of financial slavery (government dependence) - Democrat
    16 Amendment (taxes) - Democrat.
    Social Security - Democrat
    Atom bomb used in Anger - Democrat
    Welfare - Democrat.
    US defeats in War - Democrats
    CURRENT attacks and threats on 1st, 2nd, and 4th through 10 Amendments - Democrats

    What would I sound like if I said most all our troubles...are Bush's fault?

  • Robert

    I testified in the CT legislative hearing regarding gun violence yesterday. It was a long day and the last person to testify did so around 3:00am (it started at 1:00pm).

    There were many pro-gun advocates and a fewer number of anti gun and a few parents that had lost children in that awful killing in Sandy Hook in December.

    There are factions in the Connecticut Legislature who have been pushing prohibitive gun laws for years and unfortunately this tragedy is their cause celebre to ram many laws (including banning whole classes of rifles, magazines, ammo purchase methods and so forth) on the law-abiding folks in CT. The testimony from the parents was heartbreaking, and I'm happy to also say the testimony from the pro gun people was reasoned, respectful and logical. I doubt that either side swayed anyone from their "feeling" but hopefully the legislators realize they should infringe on the law-abiding at their own peril. The anti guns spoke from emotion and pain, which is their right and even though the pro 2A folks were passionate they also suggested ways to limit the damage with firearms. CT has been doing early release for prisoners who turn around and commit more crimes, one of the parents of a slain child said he didn't blame the gun, he blamed the mad-man that shot his mother and stole hers.

    It's a tense situation here in CT, many believed nothing that would stop the tide of anti-gun sentiment in the state house but we had to try.

    Get active in your state, write to your representatives. If you own firearms, keep them in good order, secure and get yourself trained.

    Responsible gun owners are the only thing that separates us from a total ban.


  • Woody

    @ Robert

    Good post - well said.

  • James_G

    he Constitution and the Bill or Rights were designed to omit the Government as much as they were to provide citizens freedoms.

    Mr wide awake - After Katrina I observed a women on the news say that if Pres Bush didn't hate blacks, he could have turned Katrina aside so it didn't hit New Orleans. You sir, have the SAME level of stupidity as that women.Stay in your hole and play with yourself.

  • Reorganized Saint
    Reorganized Saint October 4, 2013 at 3:51 am

    tell US Marine Fighting Tyranny i can guarantee that the founding fathers never had in mind the type of military firearms with multiple clips that hold multiple rounds to be used on the streets today. Take a course on school armed intruder classes, listen the 911 callers from the victims from columbine and sandy hook, then talk to everyone about your one-sighted view of the ammendments.

  • boo bear

    Lanza was law-abiding, right up until the instant he shot those children. Just saying. "Law-abiding" is not a good argument. The 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed," meaning it's for the law-abiding, the criminals, the felons, etc. The second Amendment does not have wording that prevents it from working both ways.

  • Cyber Geezer

    Your history lesson is just a regurgitation of the type of history lessons given our children in public schools; a lot of revision, dancing around a few facts on the fringe, complete with indoctrination spread with a liberal dose of BS; but lacking in any factual history.

    As a history major, retired history teacher, and staunch supporter of what our founders produced in writing the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) I am appalled at how easily your company bought into the lies you've presented as fact. I am, however, very pleased to read the number of comments from other readers who took you to task for your fantasy-laced commentary as it seems more of them understand the truth about this subject than your writer and editor who tried to palm this off on us. Shame on you!!

    • Brandon Garrett

      @Cyber Geezer. I'm sorry you feel that way. It was not my intention to speak on either side of the issue - just present some historical facts. If you could please share some of the "facts on the fringe" that were left out. As a retired history teacher, you sound like a great source of information. Please reply and let me know what events that we listed above don't fit within accepted historical fact.

  • Jeffrey Blose

    Unless the 2nd amend is repealed, which is the only legal way the government has to restrict guns, "you can take it from my cold dead hands! As many have stated here without armed citizens the gov can ride rough shod all day long as it is currently doing. No knock warrantless searches, no due process since the gov can come in the middle of the night and take you away on suspicion without court protection, kill list of American citizens without due process, monitor news agencies, etc....WAKE UP YOU ARE IN NAZI AMERICA! I remember a few decades back people used to say didn't the average german see it coming well "NO" cause most are like we are today and most here don't see it coming.

    • Bird

      As most smart Americans and people know it doesn't matter how many restrictions you put on gun laws, drugs, etc. If there is a will there is a way.

      By taking away our gun rights those of us who are responsible, mature adults are the ones being punished for others actions. It will also make it harder for those of us who want to have a gun for self-protection or hunting or even peace of mind impossible to get. Those who don't abide by laws, regulations or standards will still get a hold of guns no matter how many restrictions are put on guns. They will still commit crimes with those unregistered guns. Like I stated above, where there is a will there is a way. Criminals don't care, so our government is trying to disarm us as the people as they are preparing to do something and don't want us to be able to defend ourselves. If you don't see that you really need to wake up and start paying attention to what is going on.

      I read above someone state that it only has to do with the AR's. All though I agree with you that we don't need those kind of guns if you are just hunting or want to defend yourself, however I would rather have a AR against someone else who has one, if I were to have to defend my family or myself
      against one, then having a single shot. However, if they start by taking away our rights with one type of gun they will do it with the rest. That is where it all starts, by taking away one next thing you know its all your rights for owning any. So don;t fool yourself into thinking it is just one type they are trying to ban.

Leave a Reply