There are at least eight Democratic Senators who will in all probability vote against any new ban on semi-automatics. They are Max Baucus (MT), Bob Casey (PA), Russ Feingold (WI), Mary Landrieu (LA), Ben Nelson (NE), Harry Reid (NV), Jon Tester (MT), and Jim Webb (VA). Newcomer Mark Begich from Alaska also appears to be friendly to our Second Amendment rights, but more concrete information is needed.

Assuming that Al Franken wins the recount against Norm Coleman in MN, that leaves you with 59 Democrats in the Senate, at least nine of which have no desire to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans to purchase guns. Some of them do support other gun-control measures, but in the case of a reauthorized semi-auto ban, its future seems somewhat uncertain no matter how much pressure Obama and Biden may bring to bear.

Still, the price of freedom remains eternal vigilance.

Wait a sec, it is OK for the Attorney General to wiretap citizens and control the Department of Justice by firing anyone not partisan enough, but if they threaten to try to come up with ideas to reduce gun crime in America, well that's just gone too far?

Good thing that King of England is still afraid to try to take over America because so many law abiding heroes are ever vigilant.

Oh, and Go Wolverines!

Bill, the one thing you should really be worried about is if some mental case tries to one-up the lunatic from Virginia Tech last year. It is after these mass killings that the pressure for restrictive gun legislation gains the most traction.

Koil, to whom are you directing that question? I don't want the AG tapping my phone lines, either. In fact, I believe the Fourth Amendment says it's illegal to do so - not that the Bush administration cares, I understand, but somebody needs to reign in the DoJ and the DHS, and I don't see Bush doing that.

The question is taking on gun ownership vs. taking on violent crime, not just "gun crime." Violent crime levels have risen in Australia and the UK since their own gun-control measures went into effect.

With the current violation of the Posse Comitatus, I plan to keep my guns REGARDLESS of what happens in Congress. You see, when the government breaks the law, there IS no law. When the government ignores the law, I'll simply ignore the law too. Bushie is planning to station U.S. military troops in this country with the specific purpose of putting down any civil unrest. Well, that's against the law. Whach'ya'gonna'do when the come for YOU? I know what I'm gonna do.

It's all about parity. The citizens of this country have the absolute RIGHT to defend themselves against their own government should that become necessary. But I would go further. Not just the right, but the duty. THAT'S why we need our guns. When the government starts shooting at us for our own good, all bets are off. I pity the poor fellas in uniform that are "just following orders". Not a good idea to follow illegal orders in THIS country. That just might get you killed.

Congress needs to stop this nonsense immediately. NO army troops can be allowed for law enforcement in this country. PERIOD! If Congress won't stop it, the armed citizens of the country will via the second amendment.

Does the gun control laws that you are betting against include the excessive tax that they wish to apply to guns & ammo to make it unaffordable for us to shoot our legal weapons?

It didn't take long for the nut comments to start coming out, did it (yes Larry, I'm talking about you).

Bill, a couple more minor thoughts to make you nervous on your bet.

"First and foremost, the overriding issue for the Dems is preserving power...not a single one wants to give up their power..."

That seems to make sense alright, however, history proves otherwise. The pent up frustration of 8 years will in fact result in just the opposite of what you hope. It's what keeps the pendulum swinging.

"Second, the Democrats have a long list of massive messes to clean up...There will be no time in Congress or the White House for gun legislation, nor should there be..."

Hmmm...that's a bit like arguing with the cop who just gave you a speeding ticket that there are more important crimes he should be attending to. That argument never has, and never will, work.

But, good luck with your bet. I hope you win.

To answer manmike's questions, yes, no chance of a new excise tax on guns and ammo. We already have as 11 percent excise tax on all guns and ammo. It's called the Pitman-Robinson Act.....Bill

I'm with you on my concerns and hopes that Obama meant it when he said he believed in our right to be armed. He is a constitutional scholar. Still that question worried me too. Like what the.... ? He got a lot of votes that will turn on him if he tries to take away basic gun ownership. I believe more should be having concealed weapon permits. Well trained citizens who are armed have already been helpful in some of the nutcase shootings we have. I know it's a risk if the gun owners aren't trained but that is what concealed weapon laws should make sure of.

Oops, manmike, I mean madmike. Another keyboard malfunction.....Bill

Why are my comments nutty, adrian? Are you even FAMILIAR with what is currently happening in regards to Posse Comitatus and the stationing of Army troops in this country? I'm guessin' that you don't even know what Posse Comitatus is or you wouldn't make a fool of yourself. And do you REALLY believe that it's a good idea to have Army troops engaged in law enforcement duties in this country? I don't. Again, adrian, IT'S ILLEGAL! And when the govt. ignores the law, there is no law.

It's time for the gun advocates to live in the 21st century. The right to own a gun was enacted back when guns and cannons were the only means of warfare. Nowadays, if someone wants to do you in, they can use a bomb or airplane. Either the gun advocates need to let go of this idea that somehow a gun will protect you - or else they need to expand their campaign to include the right to own plutonium and the right to own a commercial jet.

The idea that we can use our guns to defend ourselves against our own military is nuts and more militia thinking than realistic. Our protection against what happened under the Bush administration is to elect new leaders and they better do differently or keep electing new. To me guns are for our own protection from home invasions and from predators if we live in rural areas and have livestock

Rain -
I'm a bit curious as to whether President-elect Obama's "Constitutional Scholarship" will have any bearing whatsoever regarding his actions.

Note Article One, Section Six of the Constitution. Read that little excerpt, and then provide a explanation as to how Mr. Obama can legally select Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. Legally, he cannot, whether she resigned her Senate seat or not. Yet, that is exactly what he has chosen to do, scholarship or not.

My point is not to demonstrate an "Anti-Hillary" bias, nor to argue such against Mr.Obama. What is clearly evident is that his "scholarship" seems to be either lacking, or he simply does not care what the law (Constitution) states. Ms. Clinton indifference towards the law appears to be in sync with his.

Unfortunately, this isn't the "change" I was anticipating. It's positively Bushian.

I am tired of hearing about all the fatal shootings during robberies and breakins - as well as the accidental shootings by family members and friends of gun-owners. On the other hand, far smaller is the number of cases where a gun in the house was actually accessible and used in the proper manner to provide some protection.

People who are trained and raised with guns don't shoot themselves. The ones who do should not have them based on no training. At least though if you shoot yourself, you are exercising your freedom and not having someone else's fear decide your rights.

I live over 20 miles from any town. There is one thing that would protect me from a home intruder and that's me. I am a woman; so it's not like I could overcome someone by brute force. I don't care if you have a gun and think people who fear them should not but homes for centuries have had weapons. The West was populated by those who had guns around and knew how to use them properly. Gun owners should also have gun safes for when they are gone.

This is off topic, but as for Hillary, I have been hearing about this glitch as the same thing with those who are suing about Obama not being properly born and registered. It's about trying to take away the rights of the voters-- nothing new for the right wing these last 8 years.

The people voted for Obama and he should choose who works for him. Many times senators have been selected for cabinet positions. Biden was a senator also. As I understand it, this is a glitch with no more than a technicality based on Bush's raising salaries by executive order. The complaints are coming from the right who are sore losers (likewise about the birth certificate). If it actually changes Hillary's right to be Secretary of State, it'll end up Richardson. I would not have cared if McCain had been chosen but clearly he'd also be blocked if this is allowed to stand as a reason.

I don't let myself worry about it either way. It will be decided during a confirmation and she has not yet resigned her senate seat. But it is a ridiculous reason to block her appointment, no surprise though given our recent political history.

Bill, I think it's safe to infer you supported Mr. Obama, and are now indulging in a bit of 'whistling past the grave yard' in your bet (or hope?) that his adminstration doesn't really mean what it says about additional gun controls. You remind of a wealthy friend who none-the-less wholeheartedly supported Mr. Obama as well. When asked why she didn't have any concerns about his campaign pledge to raise taxes on her income bracket, her response was, "It'll never happen -- the Republicans in Congress will stop him!" You're both hoping the 'adults' in Washington will prevail.

I cannot speak for Bill, but I was a supporter of Obama and what I hope is he does what he said he would do which was to not attack the right of ordinary citizens to own guns. I didn't think, based on what he said, that he was ever as far left as the right tried to paint him. I expected some tax hikes, maybe even in my economic bracket, because I see what has happened the last 8 years to be totally irresponsible. Funding a war and all the spending by borrowing from China? That was conservative?

I have heard the way some attack anyone who says what I am about to say but I would be in favor of limiting the kind of guns citizens can own to handguns and hunting rifles, not war weapons. I have read comments here before to know how much that riles up the right but i have seen too many shootings by nutcases who, with that kind of assault rifle, nobody can stand against them. I understand how some feel they have to fight off the military someday in our country but it's just unrealistic. And then you have the small child who shot himself with an Uzzi which he had no strength to handle because his father wanted to take a picture of him doing it. Parents and gun dealers don't always have judgment.

If you aren't hurting someone else, I don't care; but when you let a child have a gun like that or go into a mall and start shooting, I do care. If Obama tackles that, which I tend to doubt he will, but I'd have total support for it.

I support gun ownership for hunting and self-protection (even like concealed weapon laws because I have one of those permits to carry), but I see logic in limiting what that means. I know, living in the rural west, how unpopular what I just said is to the far right, militia minded. I have seen the road signs shot up by those rifles and know how many are out there and won't be turned in but still to not try to do something about it. An ordinary citizen is more likely to be shot by one than have someone using it effectively to fight off the military who have suddenly gone wild.

Nuts, rain? I don't think it's "nuts" at all to maintain that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens is a wonderful system of checks and balances against abuses by our nation's own military and government. Why is it nuts specifically? Are you a trained member of the military? The notion that the military is invulnerable is simply mistaken. I think that it's maybe YOU who is nuts for not wanting an armed citizenry. I deal with "gun nuts" all the time, and they are some of the most responsible citizens I know. They're good, honest, decent people.

Nuts was an unkind word for me to use. Just wrong though because the military has weapons that no ordinary citizen could have, more money behind them. Our protection against a military that goes rogue is through voting and our form of government. Right now the most likely use of assault rifles has been kooks, terrorists and at gun shows-- oh and those who shoot up signs for fun. It's purely a matter of my personal opinion that you can allow citizens to have rifles and handguns but limit the kinds of weapons. Would the militia-minded believe that they should be permitted to own missile rocket firers... You can tell I am not up on weaponry names but you know what I mean. There are always limits to what citizens can own. Nobody gets to buy a tank... do they?

I have said my piece here and won't post again on it as it goes in circles. I know good people disagree on the subject. I am not so foolish as to think everyone who owns an assault rifle is a danger to society. I just wouldn't mind limiting access to them. That would be highly unpopular obviously.

I as a liberal Democrat that Obama doesn't step in the steaming pile that gun control is. It's done nothing but lose Democrats elections. The Assault Weapons Ban especially lost Congress in 1996, Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004.

I also have a concealed carry permit, as well as a semi-auto version of the AK-47. It is less powerful than most hunting rifles and only fires one shot per trigger pull just like a hunting rifle.

Semi-auto rifles with military styling (also called "assault weapons" by the misguided) are used in less than 1.8% of all murders (Kleck).

Secondly, it is already legal in the United States for any law-abiding citizen to buy and use machineguns, mortars, RPGs, tanks, 105mm howitzers, artillery, AA cannons, gatling guns, grenades, silencers, armored personnel carriers, and cruise missiles. Yes, really. There are several hundred thousand of these types of weapons in the US (they're called Title II weapons), and not one legal citizen-owned Title II weapon has ever been used in any crime since 1934 when they started keeping track of them. On the other hand, the only crime shown to have been committed with a legally owned machinegun was a murder committed by a police officer. Machineguns and semi-auto rifles with military styling are not a public safety threat in the US and never have been. Restricting them makes zero sense and is unconstitutional. Period.

Third, if you do not know the difference between a true assault rifle and an "assault weapon" as defined in the 1994 law, you are absolutely unqualified to promulgate any sort of position at all on any gun control law whatsoever. That goes for every poster in this thread. In the age of Google, it is completely inexcusable to not know even the most basic facts about firearms.

Fourth, I as a liberal know that gun control as a whole is racist, anti-progressive, sexist, classist, intolerant, and anti-gay. I as a liberal Democrat will have none of it, nor will I vote for anyone who espouses it.

Obama's support of gun control was in fact the *last* of several reasons I didn't vote for him - his support of the Iraq War, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, and opposition to gay marriage were far more worrisome to me.

That said, I fully expect several executive orders which Obama does not need Congress to implement:
-Bans of all imported ammunition
-Bans on all imported gun parts
-Directives to stretch the "sporting use" clause to include far more firearms.

Lastly, the 2nd Amendment of course does not apply to nuclear weapons or biological weapons. The amendment refers to "arms". Nukes and anthrax are clearly and unequivocally "ordnance" and thus can be regulated.

Owning tanks is perfectly legal. Many hobbyists in the United States own surplus Sherman tanks and make their own high explosive armor piercing rounds for them, perfectly legally of course. When was the last episode of "tank violence" committed with a legally owned tank and main gun?

Child accidental deaths by firearm are extraordinarily rare. According to the CDC, there were 75 accidental firearm deaths in the entire US for children 0-14 in 2005. In contrast, 2,210 children died in motor vehicle accidents. Again, attempting to argue that rights should be restricted to save children from accidental firearm death is a complete non-starter rooted in moral panic rather than a desire to save children.

I won't call your bet. At least one gun control law of not several are going to get through Congress if we Dems don't call our reps and tell them to stuff it. If one gun law gets through and is signed, Obama's a one term president.

Legal yes, braun. But you failed to mention that one must be a class III dealer to own such weapons as full auto, etc. The average citizen cannot unless they become a class III dealer. Even concealed carry can be tricky to get. I know, I have one of those too. Had to nearly wrestle the sheriff though to get it. He had a little puke underling that didn't like my record. I got that straightened out quick enough.

Well you may own a gun - but I may have one, too. In which case, I, as a perpetrator of a crime, am very gun savvy (maybe even more so than you). If I am planning either an assault or robbery, I will plan my actions accordingly, which includes presuming you have a gun - and therefore I will set you up so that I can overtake/shoot you when your guard is down, most likely immobilizing you through a shot from my gun. So much for you protecting yourself.

Larry,

Perhaps in your state you need to be a dealer. In most other states, you only need to submit $200 for a tax stamp and background check with your police chief's signature. No federal dealer license is required to own a machinegun.

Meh-whatever:
In interviews with prisoners in Florida (you know, actual prisoners instead of your theoreticals), their #1 fear was encountering an armed citizen. They feared an armed citizen more than cops, incidentally. Universally, they said that even if they had a gun, they would avoid armed citizens and go after unarmed ones. Criminals, even armed ones, do not want to die and do not pick on the armed.

This, of course, is why criminals pick areas in which the law-abiding are forbidden from being armed - like restaurants, malls, and churches in some states - to kill and rob people.

Secondly, where do you get these violent thoughts? Perhaps you need counseling for such terrible fantasies. (shudder)

Are there actually still people out there who believe the Obama administration is further to the left than Clinton's?

It has been accurately stated that Bill Clinton was the best Republican President since Theodore Roosevelt; but those people appear to have missed Nixon's Southern Strategy completely. They seem to have have missed that the basis of Republicanism is precisely what propped up Jim Crow from 1876 to 1966.
They seem to still believe our nation cares for any citizens other than those who are actually corporations.

In any event I suspect most old-fashioned Democrats will see Mr. Obama as considerably to the left of Everett Dirksen.

Larry Kralj seems to be one of those few remaining patriots who lean toward the old freeman belief that an armed citizenry can stand between an oppressive government--or an invading force of Islamic miscreants.
But Larry is not all that far removed from Tito's Partisans. I suspect there is in him a lot of familial pride.
And nobody would confuse him with a Republican!

That ought to have been to the RIGHT of Everett Dirksen.

Rain, et. al. -

I'm not a "sore loser", as I voted for a third party candidate as I have for years. I simply pointed out the letter of the "Law" versus what our supposed "constitutional scholar" is doing. Biden, I must add, was not appointed, but elected, therefore his presence in the executive branch is not a violation of Article One, Section six of the Constitution.

The "will of the people" is not something we should necessarily champion. Bush managed to manipulate the will of the people into the murderous wars we are in, as did Hitler. "Will" can be easily manipulated through sight, sense, and sound - like "sound bites".

Excessive respect for the "will of the people" disabuses the concept of constitutional law. The "people" can easily become of mob mentality by whatever stimulus, planned or incidental. That is the reason we should respect the Constitution and its moderating influence and literally disrespect those who act in willful violation of it.

I too am a gun owner, live thirty miles from the nearest town, and have no intention of ceding my God-Given rights, "Inalienable rights" to those perhaps bothered by my earlier reference, to any man or government. This government was designed to protect those rights, and when it has changed sufficiently from its mandate that it chooses to violate said rights, it has lost its legitimacy.

I grieve for the loss of innocent lives caused by improper handling of guns, as well as the lives of those who are murdered by others using whatever weapon they chose.

I also grieve for the 150,000-250,000 people who die in this country every year due to medical "errors". I grieve for the shortening and/or loss of our lives and those of our children due to environmental pollutants, genetically modified foods, adulterated food in general, degraded water quality, microwave radiation from both cell phones and cell towers, e.m.f.'s around High Tension Transmission Lines that create cancer clusters, the actions of Big Pharma, and the Military Industrial Complex.

These though, are quiet deaths - deaths that never make a headline or the 10:00 news. They are slow and insidious, always behind a closed door, and exposure on a wide scale threatens the powers that be, the "Establishment" as a whole.

"If it bleeds, it leads", and gunshot wounds fit right into Don Henley's commentary in "Dirty Laundry". "Is the head dead yet?"

But when the same honorable Doctor interviewed about the horrors of "gun violence", which is "people violence", kills a patient a month later by giving her the wrong prescription, well, we just don't hear about that one. And the real cause of death isn't in her medical chart. It's not incompetence or involuntary manslaughter, it's an "adverse reaction". Like an "exit wound" without a perpetrator.

And Mehmnet, most criminals are flat-out stupid. But, after prosecution and incarceration, in interview after interview they will flat out repeat over and over that they pick their "victims" based on perceived vulnerability. If the B&E;types believe a home is occupied and the homeowner is armed, well, they leave and look for your house.

Exit wounds, baby - exit wounds.

For the purposes of discussion about the Gun Rights issue , I'm quoting from an article currently appearing on the http://www.AlterNet.org website. It concerns the whopping losses that the National Rifle Association sustained in the recent election....80 percent of "their" pro-Gun candidates were defeated ( in places other than Wyoming and Montana, apparently) , while 90 percent of the Anti-NRA anti-Gun candidates got elected. It's a different world east of the 100th Meridian.

(quote)

" Although the [ NRA ] unleashed everything in its arsenal to defeat Barack Obama and dozens of down ticket gun-control candidates, it lost by a margin as historic as the war chest it opened in an attempt to convince voters that Democrats were mortal enemies of the Second Amendment. Despite expending nearly $7 million in a national fear campaign, NRA-endorsed candidates lost 80 percent of their races against gun-control candidates. More than 90 percent of candidates endorsed by the NRA's nemesis, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, won their races. If 2008 was, in the NRA's own words, "arguably the most important year in its history," then the election results suggest that the gun group is arguably the most overhyped and impotent special-interest lobby in the country. The NRA even got its chamber cleaned in its home state of Virginia.

The sweeping victory for gun control has been one of the most underreported stories of the election. "

###

Meh-whichever,

A 14 year old kid got shot unintentionally, one of about 75 children 0-14 in the US each year, or slightly less than the amount that are accidentally poisoned.

810 died from drowning, 2,110 in car accidents, and 441 in fires. It seems that many much more deaths of children could be prevented by teaching kids to swim and installing smoke detectors.

If a gun-ban advocate tells you that firearms should be controlled more closely to prevent child deaths, ask them first how many children they have taught to swim, how many child safety seats have they donated to needy charities, and how many smoke detectors they have installed in low-income housing. If the answer is zero to any, I would say that they care less about saving children and more about banning guns for their own reasons. And they lied to you too, because they knew that whatever reasons they really hold to be true wouldn't stand rational scrutiny
. Wouldn't you say?

I would.

The particular clause that would impact Clinton being Secretary of State is not letting someone profit from passing a law that they have caused the profit. In this case it was Bush who upped the salaries by executive order and it makes no sense to not allow her to take the same salary she would get as a senator and have the job.

The constitution is not a sacred document. It has been amended many times including to allow women and blacks to vote. Would you favor going back to when that was not the case? If she is blocked, it'll probably be Richardson which is fine with me. I liked the idea of him as Secretary of State. I just think it would make no sense to block her on a technicality which she had nothing to do with increasing the salary nor could she have known last year that it would impact her.

Since I wrote again on that, I might add having a gun is not a protection against someone who wants to murder me. That can be done a lot of ways. It is a protection on someone who breaks down my door to get to me because it will give me enough time to know they don't mean well and to get my .357 which I would use without hesitation or would not have it.

I believe in the right to bear arms, am a big believer in concealed permits because they have prevented a few deaths already when someone was on the scene who had a gun and was able to stop someone intent on mass murder. Concealed weapon permits do require some training which is good. Guns in homes are fine if people are responsible in how they train their children. I grew up in a home with loaded guns. My kids grew up in one and now my grandkids are growing up in one. Guns are dangerous weapons that require responsibility along with the ownership but in our home, if they were not loaded, they'd do no good against the predators intent on killing the sheep and more than once a loaded gun nearby has been a good thing.

The American people didn't vote guns in this election, that's all I can say. Yes, the NRA lost quite a few races. Americans had other issues to vote on that they considered more important. The NRA simply couldn't fight the fact that the Republicans got us into 2 wars, destroyed the economy, and are spending trillions to bail out bankers. The election losses are not an indication of the weakness of the NRA, it is an indication of the weakness of Republicans.

"810 died from drowning, 2,110 in car accidents, and 441 in fires" - yes - but the fact remains, when a gun goes off, for the most part, it's because a person has deliberately fired the trigger. That's different than lacking the knowledge to swim, being a careless driver or letting your kids in the car without buckling them up, or not installing smoke detectors. Also, such incidents have the luxury of time: if the adverse situation occurs, help can be administered in attempt to prevent death. With guns, once the shot is fired, there is no turning back - if the wound is to the heart or head, death is almost imminent. There is no extended period of time during which one can stop the bullet from reaching its target.

My husband was a long time member of NRA who quit it over a constant drumbeat in their magazine about protecting the right to own assault rifles. There are many gun owners who don't like the idea of going to a mall and finding someone there with an assault rifle shooting. Yes it doesn't happen all the time but it's happened too often. The NRA might do better by defending the right to basic gun ownership and not letting themselves be seen as a defender of militias.

And yes, I have read the above posts and understand the venom this all inspires but being a member of the NRA is a choice. If there was even some control over who can buy assault level rifles, it might not be so worrisome to some like me but I have been out in the woods, heard someone using one in 'target' practice and I have no idea who they are or what their intentions would be toward me. I avoid them. I know they shoot up things for the fun of it. Yes, I know it's not most assault rifle owners but maybe if there was more control over who could get them, there'd be more support for their ownership-- although I still personally don't see any reason for an ordinary citizen to own one. Despite the talk above, our military has way more fire power and no militia group can really stand against them.

And it might yet be there will be a political battle to maintain gun ownership period someday. We should be united and we never will be while some want to own and use a grenade launcher if they so designate.

Jed, how'd you know? Ol' Josef Broz was my hero, and more than likely a relative. (I'm Croat and Slovene too) But I have heroes closer to home too. Many of my ancestors were mining coal in Colorado during the Ludlow Massacre. I grew up on those stories. The U.S. government slaughtered innocent miners and their families. We haven't really trusted the government ever since. NO ONE in my family was ever allowed to go in the National Guard after that. The Army was OK, but NOT the national guard.

Buy lots of ammunition and guns now. then see what happens.

But ammunition and guns now - enough to last.

Rain, et.al. -

The part of Article One, Section Six to which I refer is worded as follows:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States which shall have been created."

The "emoluments", i.e., "pay aspects" follow in said Section, but are not germane.

Ms. Clinton still had time remaining to serve in her term to which she had been elected by her constituents. Resigning from her seat does not change her circumstance in relationship to her obvious Constitutional ineligibility for the position of Secretary of State. Words matter, or at least they should.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is regularly discarded for either convenience or simply as an exercise of raw power. Note that I never referred to the Document as sacred, nor did I ever infer that we should return to it in its original form with but the first ten amendments. Remember, with no first ten amendments, the Constitution would not have been ratified.

I argued that the "Law of the Land" is that Constitution. "Rain" correctly pointed out that it has been amended a number of times, and that is the process that should be employed rather than simply ignoring its provisions. Following the dictums and the procedures for amending it prevent emotionally-driven and ill-considered measures from becoming law before such proposals can be intellectually vetted properly.

It is indeed unfortunate that our legislators and executive branch have chosen for decades to pretty well ignore the Constitution. Congress has not declared "war" since 1941, yet we have found ourselves embroiled in one after another. Congress itself has basically abdicated any real role since the mid-1930's. They are Constitutionally charged with submitting the budget, but even that is now done by the executive branch. Where is our newly-elected "constitution scholar" on that small multi-trillion dollar issue?

Senator Frank Church of Idaho is most remembered for his tireless efforts regarding wilderness protection. Though it is well he is championed for such, I would encourage the readers to look up the results of the "Church Committee" he headed after Watergate. Read every word, and you will be a different person upon completion.

The good Senator pointed out that "the United States has been under a declared national emergency every year since 1933..."

Nothing has changed since he penned those words in the mid-1970's, and as the Senator pointed out, every President every year has declared a "national emergency" over any issue they so desire. Such has continued to this day. The effect of these declarations is continued rule of the country by the Executive Branch, which partially explains why Congress is basically an emasculated entity which cannot effectively provide the "checks and balances" as envisioned by our founders.

"Executive Orders" and "Signing Statements" are how we are now governed. This has gone on for so long, there is no institutional memory left in Congress to recognize it, let alone attempt to correct it. And the citizenry? Well, ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

This election was not a "gun issue election". This election was the revulsion and repudiation of the policies and actions of the worst and most incompetent President (maybe Lincoln was worse) in the country's history, as well as the almost wholly corrupt Republican members of the House and Senate. Never before have we seen a party in such absolute disgrace. Corruption, war, the economy, torture, loss of international standing - loss was almost inevitable.

Bill Schneider is correct in hoping that Obama leaves the gun issue alone. Though many states turned "Blue" this last election cycle, the margins of victory were very slight in a number of states. Obama doesn't have a great deal of room to maneuver on many issues of real importance, as we are heading towards almost certain national bankruptcy and likely depression. And then there is the matter of those two little undeclared, thus unconstitutional wars we've gotten ourselves into.

Perhaps after two-three years trying to solve the likely insolvable, Obama will realize that there's nothing wrong with being a one-term President. That's the time to bring up guns as a political issue, because it will guarantee his rapid exit from the political stage. Then he can hand off the Bush disaster that he gets labeled with to some other power-hungry narcissist, either party will do, and he can go make ten million a year on a speaking tour like Bill Clinton has.

John M., this is off-topic, and I wouldn't normally answer, but your quoting skill is really below the fifth-grade level. You quote the article from the constitution as

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States which shall have been created."

First of all, this wouldn't even be a complete sentence, and the writers of the Constitution were not illiterate, whatever you may think. Here is the complete sentence up to the first semicolon:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time;"

The crucial part you left out is "during such time". So if it has been created or the salary has been raised during the time the Senator served he/she would not be able to be appointed. The question whether reverting the salary increase is a solution to this problem is controversial, but it has been done before by Taft, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton/George H.W. Bush.

It is quite ironic that you claim to understand the Constitution better than some Harvard Law Scholar, if you can't even parse a simple sentence in it.

Mehmet:

"yes - but the fact remains, when a gun goes off, for the most part, it's because a person has deliberately fired the trigger."

Whoops, you screwed up in your jump and dodge. We were and have always been talking about accidents. Now you've lost that argument and are moving on to intentional acts. Go peddle your silliness somewhere else, no one's listening to you here.

"My husband was a long time member of NRA who quit it over a constant drumbeat in their magazine about protecting the right to own assault rifles."

Again, people that don't know the difference between FULL AUTO assault rifles and SEMI-AUTO rifles with military styling have no business being in this debate. Watch this video, educate yourself, and then perhaps return with new knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

The 2nd amendment explicitly protects individual ownership of militia weapons. This does not mean hunting rifles, this means semi-auto rifles with military styling. Period.

The Ludlow Massacre?
I actually have made a couple pilgrimages down there, Larry. Was in the area and made sure of it. Most people have no clue it exists at all, and that's sad.
Amazing history down there, and so little on the surface.
As for Bill...
I doubt very much the senior Commiecrats from safe urban seats will be able to restrain themselves from loading up the hopper, or must-pass legislation, with gun control. And will BHO veto those bills? Nah.
And I guess I'd like to add a little to the Obamasurvey questionnaire...which is far more indicative of the mindset of the Obama transition staff:
First in general, BHO wants people with a complete tabula rasa, apparently complete noncontroversiality, especially no nail-above-the-surface history.
More specifically, when it comes to guns, the tail end of Number 59 is:
If so, provide [not please] complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed. Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”
My answer would instantly disqualify me.
Clearly, the Obamarama campaign is interested only in privacy when it is advantageous to the entity. You know, like that birth certificate.
Maybe the bet should be, if no gun laws pass, we should give you all our guns, and if gun laws do pass, you should give us all of yours? Or maybe I should bet one of mine against one of yours? Say my Bushie varminter. You can have it for a few days before the thugs come.

I don't know why that question was in Obama's questionnaire. Clearly he has a right to not hire gun owners but it doesn't really tell you if that would disqualify you. perhaps it would. It was a worrisome addition.

I heard a constitutional scholar discuss the Hillary problem tonight. It is a $10,000 addition to the salary of Secretary of State and what she had to do with it was to allow those changes to happen, not that she voted for it. It's crazy that it would exempt any current senator or Representative from serving in the Cabinet. A shame if it stood because it would mean no DC experience except as lobbyist currently. Lobbyists are the last people we want in there-- in my opinion.

Since this has been ignored before or worked around by lowering the salary of the appointee, this is all about keeping Hillary out. If he had appointed McCain secretary of state, we'd not likely be even hearing about it. It's the right wing fringe who brings up such things including the Obama birth certificate.

"Clearly he has a right to not hire gun owners ."

What if he decides not to hire a gay gun owner. Or a black gun owner. Or how about a female gun owner? Does he have a right to do that? I wasn't going to comment, but I found that a bit too offensive.

How can it be offensive to not have to hire someone when they are making a choice regarding guns. I don't know that Obama is letting it be a factor. I didn't like the question myself but it's not the same to have a gun or support gun ownership as to be black or gay. It's a behavior and a choice. I have one. I defend the right to have them. As I said, I have a concealed weapon permit also but the idea that someone would have to hire me or even come to my home if guns bothered them, I can't see how that is bigotry.

I will continue to "peddle my silliness" to you foolish girls.

My point is that, in contrast to a body of water, an automobile or a building home, a gun is a weapon, a tool for killing or maiming. It has not other purpose. When it goes off, it can only fulfill its purpose if it enters a human body.

I don't get all this assumption/presumption that somehow guns are a check against an overly-dominant government. The only people who have ever truly enacted that notion are the NUTZ like the Branch-Davidians who hole themselves up in a compound. And how many standoffs have ended in the gunman using his own gun to kill himself?

How egoistic of you.

Of course guns are meant to stop human size targets effectively - otherwise they wouldn't be so good for 135lb women to use against 240lb rapists.

Read up on the "Battle of Athens" for an answer to your question.

one more thing. when the constitution was written, rifles were musket loading and you could fire as fast as you reload. I am a little tired of the argument that nobody who can't name gun types has a right to an opinion. My husband would know it all and it was him who read the magazine, not me. I had no opinion on the magazine as I shoot a gun, I don't read about it nor do I go into gun stores to find new ones.

For me, this argument is going in circles. Some like to own all types of guns and some don't want anybody to own any. I should have quit commenting here when I said i was going to but won't be back to read someone tell me how inexperienced or dumb I am to think as I do. Having a blog for a long time has taught me one thing-- sometimes there is no resolution to a debate.

Well if they are meant to do damage to human targets, then they need to be regulated - DUH!!!

"one more thing. when the constitution was written, rifles were musket loading and you could fire as fast as you reload."

Completely incorrect. Semi-auto firearms existed that fired as fast as you could pull the trigger in the late 1700s. Again, if you have no knowledge of firearms, you really shouldn't be voicing your opinion on how they should be regulated.

"Well if they are meant to do damage to human targets, then they need to be regulated - DUH!!!"

And because they are so good at defending women, minorities, the elderly, and gay people - any regulation diminishing the ability of these persecuted groups to defend themselves with firearms is necessarily sexist, racist, ageist, and anti-gay. Sorry that you couldn't make the link.

The Racist Roots of Gun Control
http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm

The Sexism of Gun Control
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/0813b.html

The shoot out in Palm Desert was the precise opposite of civilization; and reflects the ultimate of second amendment populism.

Considering that the Palm Desert shootout took place in an area where carrying handguns on your person is already illegal (except for rich celebrities and politicians of course) and involved two thug criminals, doesn't this already represent a regulatory environment you favor? Do you think that the criminals thought "hey, it's illegal, perhaps I shouldn't pull my gun here?"

And would you have been so concerned if the two men had started stabbing each other instead, and becrying "knife populism"?

Lucas,

You are half right. I should have followed the word "created" with the following - ..., and then inserted a quotation mark to end the quote. My apologies.

Let us then continue then parsing that section of the Constitution. The comma after the word "created" is then followed by the word "or", which is surely indicative of a separate argument only connected to the first phrase if in fact the qualifications in the first are met, but then subsequently undone by the further qualifications established in the second phrase. Parsed correctly. Go back to fourth grade.

I may well have failed to punctuate my argument correctly, but apparently you do not understand what a comma means, as well as the word "or". Such is far more tragic than an error in punctuation.

You then continue on to justify extra-constitutional appointments (an actions?) by president-elect's and/or presidents by by arguing that since Nixon, Taft, et. al. did so, that repeating the violation of law is therefore justified. What is this argument? Situation ethics and moral relativism? "He did, therefore I can too?" If your wife or girlfriend screws around on you sexually, does that grant you license to do the same? No. It grants you the moral and ethical right to end the relationship and search for a partner worthy of trust. Otherwise, you have endorsed the philosophically erroneous idea that "two wrongs make a right".

My concern is that if the President-elect is going to make it up as he goes along as Bush and his predecessors have done, we are in for greater and greater trouble, whether the issue is guns or butter. I pointed out clearly that the historical record shows that each and every President from 1933 to this date, regardless of party affiliation, has declared a "National Emergency"on a yearly basis, which gives them near dictatorial powers. I assume you would prefer "checks and balances" on each branch and a government which acts lawfully?

These concerns are not "off topic". We have a nascent police state emerging in the U.S., and the current president has deployed troops in this country for the first time since 1878. NORTHCOM intends to increase the deployment from the current number to over 20,000. The initial deployment and the proposed increase were approved by Defense Secretary Gates, and the president-elect has chosen him to remain in the cabinet.

This past Tuesday, a city councilman in St Louis told residents in the district he represents to go arm themselves because the police weren't getting the job done, and with a collapsing economy, crime was going to only get worse. I might add, he was African-American. If you are curious about whether or not the police even have an obligation to come to your aid or defense, look up "Castle Rock v. Gonzales" to satiate your thirsty intellect.
They do not. You are on your own.

We have a government that reads your e-mails, private correspondence, can tap your phone with no consequence, makes you virtually strip at airports, can look in your bank account at any time, and can arrest you for carrying "too much cash", and seize such without consequence. The "Patriot Act" allows them to enter your home without a warrant. We now have a "Homeland Security" apparatus which resembles the East German Stasi more and more - one that encourages neighbor to snitch on neighbor and children on their parents.

We have a government that refuses to regulate economic sectors that are rife with corruption, some of which are directly causal of our current and future economic dilemma. From that economic sector come the financial wizards through the revolving door that rotates between Wall Street and Treasury. The fox and the hen house. We have a government that has spent us into economic slavery. The government is so full of former high-level employees of businesses you can no longer find the line between business and government, whether it is in finance, commerce, energy, or the military-industrial complex. Neither party objects in practice - they simply take the money from the lobbyists and "business" goes on as usual.

Denying the obvious does not make such any less real.

Then there are the "common criminals" that most of us in this discussion keep some sort of weaponry to protect ourselves from. Referring back to the African-American gentleman from St. Louis who told his constituents to arm themselves - a worsening economy creates crime. Whether the current circumstances are an accident of history or we are about to become unwitting and unwilling players in the implementation of the "Hegelian Dialectic" is unknown. What is quite real is that desperate times cause desperate measures and acts to be taken by people.

What is also quite real is how that which is unfolding in front of us is a mirror image of what Naomi Klein wrote about in her book, "Shock Doctrine". In numerous speeches and interviews she has given in the last several months, her opinion is that what is occurring in the U.S. economically, with the predictable social upheaval and fallout, is no accident. It is "Disaster Capitalism" designed to further empower the uber-wealthy and privatize government - a planned event, and she argues that high-level members of the financial and political class support such economic trauma. It's success requires the destruction of government as we know it, as well as the destruction of the middle class. We shall see, whether we like it or not.

Stay armed or get armed. Train yourselves properly and be responsible. Always be the best part of what is human. Most importantly, we must understand that despite our political differences, we are all in this together, regardless of what happens. I believe we are entering into a period that James Kunstler refers to as "The Long Emergency", and the world as we have known it is going to go away and shall never return. "Localism" and dependence of each other is going to be our only chance of success.

"Treat your neighbor as yourself" goes the saying. Tis' a sensible proposition. Let us do so.

"And because they are so good at defending women, minorities, the elderly, and gay people - any regulation diminishing the ability of these persecuted groups to defend themselves with firearms is necessarily sexist, racist, ageist, and anti-gay. Sorry that you couldn't make the link."

Guns have caused more harm than good to the groups you named. Sorry YOU couldn't make that link.

Sorry, John N, you don't get it. Let me break it down for you (and I am not even a native speaker of English).

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time;"

You claim that the Constitution says the following:

"No Senator shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States".

Now why did they add the phrase "which shall have been created" to the end of this? Just because they wanted to confuse the American people? No, this is because the phrase "during such time" refers to both the "which shall have been created" and the "shall have been increased" parts. I would actually put another comma after "increased", but comma rules in English are not as strict as in some other languages, and were probably even less standardized at the time the Constitution was written.

So if the office has existed for a long time and the salary has not increased during the time for which the Senator was elected, there is no problem. I know of no legal scholar who disagrees with this, independently of political orientation. If you think otherwise, please provide a reference.

In Hillary's case the situation is more complicated because the salary has actually increased. If you re-read my comment (and please pay attention to the actual language, not your interpretation of it), I never claimed that it was OK to appoint her and revert the salary increase, I just pointed out that it has been done before, four times. You can google "Saxbe Fix" if you want more information. I don't think the circumstances of Hillary's appointment violate the spirit of the Ineligibility Clause (to prevent corruption), but if some people think it violates the letter of the Law, they should file suit and let the Supreme Court decide. Personally, I think this is a ridiculous waste of time and money, but your mileage may vary...

Well, here's to hoping that Obama will not pursue aanother gun ban.
Here's to hoping that Holder will "control" his "antigun tendencies."

Here's to hope.


It's about all that's left.

Mehmet, you really show that you have no grasp of history. Have you ever heard of a little thing called the Vietnam war? Where a rag tag group of people defeated the mighty US Army? Or perhaps you have heard of Afghanistan, where another group of rag tag people defeated the mighty Soviet Army?

Rain, you are just as uninformed as Mehmet, no wonder we are at this point in US history. With people like you voting we get the government you deserve. The unfortunate part of it all is you drag the rest of us down with you, then you will expect and demand we pull your sorry behinds out of the mess you created in the first place.

Perhaps both of feel that since we should only be "allowed" the weapons available at the time the Constitution was written, we also should go back to horses, quill pens and candle light. Wake up, you are being hornswoggled and you don't even know it!

John N, I just thought of another argument which might convince you that your interpretation of the Ineligibility Clause is wrong. Why would they mention the salary at all if your interpretation was correct?

And what does Hillary's appointment have to do with the Patriot Act, police state, and deregulation? I think it is quite a stretch to make a connection there.

I said I was not going to read more here; but since I did, I can't let that go. I did not say we should only be allowed muskets or cannons or whatever a well armed person might have back in the late 1700s. It was an example of saying what the Constitution might have then allowed then wouldn't necessarily make sense today. It is why it's been amended.

I am as informed about guns as I need to be to vote and luckily for me that original document got amended to allow me to do just that. It does not take knowing how to fire an assault rifle to know that I don't want them in the hands of the wrong people nor can I see the logic of letting them be in the hands of just anybody who has the money. If gun owners continue defending the right to the farthest to the right thinkers, we will all lose our right to be armed-- legally.

I don't have to have read the National Rifle magazine to know putting an Uzi in the hands of an 8 year old child was nuts! Just because I don't read the gun magazines does not mean I don't know what is going on in terms of crime.

Reading the put downs in here including by the author is why you don't get any real discourse. I know a lot of people who want to see all guns taken away. I wrote quite a few things in here that indicate I am not one of them but you read my last comment saying that the right to go armed (from the Constitution) should not automatically include the right to have an assault rifle or an Uzi and jump on that. I am sorry i read any of this (and it'll be the last type of debate I will read in here given the mentality that only an agenda); but I will be voting and if I thought the average gun owner was like some I read in this debate, I would be voting to take away guns-- not that those law-abiding types would turn theirs in anyway.

For what it is worth...

"Americans, both politicians and voters, may have become corrupted by big government beyond redemption.

A virtuous government requires a virtuous people.

A frugal government requires a self−reliant people.

A free country requires people who value liberty more than
money."

Charley Reese

Rain,

How many children have been killed accidentally by a legally owned machinegun in the last 50 years? I would wager that the 8-year old you refer to is the only one. Therefore, how many smoke detectors have you donated your time to install in childrens' bedrooms? How many children have you taught to swim? If the only 8-year old killed accidentally with a legal automatic weapon in the last 50+ years is your basis for proposing new laws to restrict gun ownership further, you clearly don't really care about reducing accidental deaths of children in the least.

If you think that military-styled semiautomatic weapons are a large component of crime (0.18% of all violent crimes involved a semi-auto firearm with military styling, and 1.8% of murders involved this type) then once again you do not have even the most basic idea about firearms, and really shouldn't be in this debate at all.

The people involved in the 8 year old's death have been prosecuted and will serve time, just like they would have if he died when they had handed the kid a can of gasoline plus matches and told him to go play in the yard. In fact, this negligent parent probably would have done such a thing eventually, but you wouldn't be calling for gasoline to be banned.

Again. Rain, you have no idea about firearm technology, firearm law, or firearms use in crime. You don't truly care about reducing child deaths in the least, and really should take your blighted, bigoted, narrowminded, intolerant opinion elsewhere.

Thank you all for your comments, but please refrain from making personal attacks on each other even if you strongly disagree with what somebody said. Instead, stick to addressing the issue, which is will Bill win his bet?.....Bill

Lucas -

I cannot believe the temerity and arrogance you displayed, criticizing me for a punctuation error during a quote, when in your latest post you misquoted me completely by leaving out a word I clearly included in the quote in reference - "Representative". Punctuation errors are one thing. Leaving out entire words are quite another matter. Back to fourth grade again, there Lucas?

I am quite aware of the "Saxbe Fix", which was and remains legally wrong. The "spirit of the law", as you so refer to it, has no bearing on this matter whatsoever. What does the law read, Lucas? Does it have a written caveat that states "In case of ..., just ignore the wording"?

Your argument is that a sitting Senator or Representative can be appointed simply because it has happened in the past and emoluments are the only prohibition, yet provide no legal opinion to support your assertion. You then toss in the "Saxbe Fix" which has been utilized as a quasi-legal end around the wording in last phrase in Article One, Section Six.

Perhaps the opinion of a legal scholar may be of some interest to you. Let us begin with the wording - "No Senator or Representative shall ...". The position was "created" by the Constitution itself. Period. How long this position has been "created" is irrelevant. The wording is an absolute prohibition, period. Further grammatical construction includes the argument regarding "emoluments" with the word "or" preceeding it, and preceeding the word "or" exists a comma, after the wording that clearly argues that Senators or Representatives are prohibited from being appointed during the mandated time of their term of office. Period.

Law Professor and Constitutional expert at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis Michael Paulsen states his opinion on this subject as follows: "The context of the rule here is broader than its purpose. And the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule." - MSNBC According to the Professor, I have read and understood the wording as constructed.

Lucas, I'm certain you are well meaning, but have cited nothing to support your assertions except prior violations of the Law by the Executive Branch, complete with quasi-legal "fixes" to make wrong acts appear right, as well as grossly misquoting me after castigating me for a minor punctuation error while quoting the clause in question.

I have now provided both you and the other readers a direct quote from a Law Professor and recognized Constitutional expert on this matter. The wording is specific, and both the wording and comma placements have been well understood by myself as well as the Law Professor mentioned above. I can see that you are still struggling with E.S.L., "English as a Second Language", as well as the apparent inability to engage in critical thinking and analysis.

It's all right. You are forgiven. No doubt you are another hapless victim of our collapsing public education system. "Black is white", "War is peace", and the President can do damn well whatever he or she pleases, because he or she can be "The Decider Guy" or "Gal" as the case may be. unfortunately, this sort of pathetic argument is what passes for intellect in this country every day. Orwell rolls in his grave.

Just keep on making it up as you go along, whistling loudly as you walk through the graveyard.

Bill will lose his bet, but the cause will be due to a scenario generally unforeseen. Politics will be guided by macro-events rather than by political ideology.

The economy will go completely under. Violence will explode first in the major cities amongst under-employed rival ethnic groups and then spread throughout the metropolitan regions. "Gated Communities" will be ravaged, looted, and the burned to the ground. Services such as police and fire departments will be completely overwhelmed, and then paralyzed by the violence.

Foot riots will ensue as well, as production of and delivery of foodstuff cease. Chaos will spread from coast to coast. Water and energy infrastructure will cease to function. An exodus by desperate refugees from the cities will flood the countryside, and violence will skyrocket as the inevitable confrontations arise.

Martial law will be declared. Private Gun ownership will be outlawed by executive order. Bummer.

Well, there's the rosy, optimistic view, anyway.

But I for one am really looking forward to those foot riots. I never saw one, and I am ready.

John N.,

This is probably my last word on this, since you don't seem to be able to admit a simple mistake. Yes, I left out "Representative" because I thought we were talking about Senator Clinton, and there was never any disagreement that this clause applies to elected members of the Legislative, in both houses of Congress. However, that was not the point of contention, and I am glad to put "Representative" back in there if it makes you happy. My main argument was not about the "Saxbe Fix" either. I admit that people can reasonably disagree about whether it is constitutional or not.

My point was that your quote completely changed the meaning of what the Constitution says. Assume just for one moment that the salary of the Secretary of State hadn't changed since Senator Clinton was elected. Then, according to your quote, she would still be ineligible for the position, whereas the Constitution is quite clear that there would be no problem in this case. Again, the crucial point you left out is not a comma or the "emoluments" but the phrase "during this time". And the words "shall have been created" does not refer to the position of Senator or Representative but to the position he/she would be appointed to, i.e., the Secretary of State in this case. What would be clearly unconstitutional is if Obama created a new office of "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" and appointed Hillary to it, i.e., this clause prohibits creating new positions and then appointing members of the House or Senate to them. Since this has not happened, the only problem for Hillary is the "emoluments" clause.

Here is a link to an explanation on the website of the Heritage Foundation, surely not a liberal organization: http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm2149.cfm

You quote Michael Paulsen as "The context of the rule here is broader than its purpose. And the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule." OK, this is very vague, what does he even refer to? It certainly does nothing to support your weird interpretation, he probably means that the Saxbe Fix is unconstitutional. Again, I am not a law scholar, and obviously your aren't either, so probably neither of us has the definite answer to this. Let's have it at the Supreme Court if it is so important to you.

By the way, your personal attacks are uncalled for.

The Viet Cong was equipped by the Soviets, and the US had no idea of how to fight a war in a jungle.

The Afghans had been invincible with or without guns because of the terrain.

Are you a former Viet Vet who still has too much Agent Orange on the brain?

I don't know why you keep comparing guns to containers of gasoline or houses lacking fire alarms. Guns are weapons, that's their only purpose, therefore they need to be regulated much more tightly than gasoline or fire alarms. For that matter, if something is a means of defense, why not advocate the same for grenades and other explosives - after all, if one is properly trained, grenade accidents would be unlikely, right??

"By Bill Schneider, 12-05-08
Thank you all for your comments, but please refrain from making personal attacks on each other even if you strongly disagree with what somebody said. Instead, stick to addressing the issue, which is will Bill win his bet?.....Bill"

Bill...you are absolutely right! I am getting sick and tired of the whole "my point of view is right and yours is wrong" mentality. For the love of Pete, we are all adults here and these petty argumentum ad personam attacks have got to stop.

It is BLATENTLY obvious that the initial topic has been "thread jacked" to use a colloquialism from todays youth. Let's get this thread back on track.

Just my opinion (if I am allowed to have one here, I will most likely be attacked for voicing it), your mileage may vary.

As I was submitting my comment I noticed yet again that Newwest has a Comment Policy.

"Comment policy:

NewWest.Net encourages robust and lively, but civil participation from our readers. By posting here, you agree to the NewWest.Net terms of service. You agree to keep your comments on topic, respectful and free of gratuitous profanity. Contributions that engage in personal attacks, racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred or are otherwise patently offensive will be subject to removal.

Other than using a filter that scans for comment spam, we do not moderate contributions before they are posted and we do not review every thread, so we ask that you help us in keeping the discussions civil and appropriate. Please email to notify us of comments that may violate these guidelines. Thanks for your help and cooperation. Click here for some tips on how to best interact on NewWest"

Here is a neat idea, when you are getting ready to press the "Submit Your Comment" button, look up about 3-4 inches on the screen and read the Comment Policy, will your submittion meet the policy standard?

It is difficult to maintain a positive respectful attitude toward people whose thinking is done for them by NRA...

I think the problem is you have college-educated readers mixing with blue-collar working class types. That's always a problem: the intellects are at a loggerhead. How could they possibly meet? (Despite their eventual affinities. Yet another quirky fact of life in the Gallatin Valley)

Yes, it is terrible when educated people have to mix with those ignorant blue collar types. That is why we have gated communities, isn't it? Perhaps some day we can have "no mixing" laws, too. We need them in the Gallatin, for sure. Can you believe that anarchical rednecks are allowed to sully the viewshed and impede the stupendous progressiveness of all of us educateds who have moved here to enjoy the last best place amenities? The other day I saw a guy with what I believe was cattle feces on his Wellington-syle boots- and I bet he voted for that Sarah Palin, too! And he was allowed in the same Starbucks that I was in, waiting for my decaf-soy-mocha java!

Everyone knows "educated" people all agree, on everything, especially on getting rid of that darned Constitution.

Wouldn't it be great if only the "educated" people could vote? and only the really educated, as determined by a government test (like that Obama questionaire about gun ownership) could be allowed to vote? Then we'd really see some progress.

Being smug is a symptom of the most devastating kind of ignorance.

Well, the gates are coming down. Big time. The Blixeths have managed to pull of the grandest pyramid scheme since Social Security. Now the richies are crying "Foul" when all they were was just greedy and stupid.

Sic em, Hal.
I was wondering when some college snot was going to fly the sheepskin BS flag.
Mehmet, this time you get an F. And if you show that attitude out in real life, over your name, you're gonna get flunked there, too. I wish I could be there to personally enjoy it.

Hey - take it easy. That's what makes this country great: blue collars, red necks and white shoes.

BTW: Sonny Von Bulow has died. But I suppose none of you care about that.

Isn't that the guy whose wife made love to a trumpet and then had to testify about it in court? Or is Sonny the lady? Then who was Klaus?
Thanks to Dominic Dunne, I got the skinny on it. But the details, other than the trumpet, are foggy.

Whoops. I meant I got the skinny courtesy of lawyer/auteur
Alan Dershowitz. Found the book in a used bookstore in New Orleans. 75 cents, and worth every penny.

Reversal of Fortune. Naw, I won't recommend it, unless you are stuck in treeplanting camp during a rainy spell with a bunch of gun-crazed anarchists and nothing to read but old Range magazines.

Schneider: correct me if I am wrong. I thought AG designee Eric Holder was Clinton AG Janet Reno's #1 person on the ground at Waco during the whole of the Branch Davidian fiasco. Were those kids killed there shot or just incinerated alive? Whose guns and tanks, weapons not available to the "militia, " were those that tore into the buildings? Not that the place was booby trapped, and the inhabitants, willing or not, were placed in jeopardy and their lives taken by the way the dominoes fell. But I thought we were once a country looking for peaceful ways to end controversy and to bring wayward folks into the corral of legal protection willing or not. Somehow my confidence in BHO's appointments of warmed over Clintonians is waning as their numbers grow.

The radical lefty anti-gun stuff is there, was elected, and is not going away no matter what the Supreme Court decides. If you haven't noticed lately, the left agrees with the courts when they decide their way, and ignores them when they do not. It is not Bushiites alone who seem to not want to follow the letter and spirit of the law. And we will have to be vigilant in the new administration that they are not making their own laws as they see fit, Constitution or no. But make no mistake, no matter who is the President, their ego and idea of mandate due to their election will be ever present. This particular President elect is anti-gun, to his core. And he has support in the Congress.

So in this Sooooooooooooo concerned with qualifications for higher office, this soooooooooooooooo anti Sarah Palin media world, (the very same lady who showed up in Georgia to campaign and fill the auditoriums for Senator elect Chambliss), this soooooooooooooooo very, very concerned about qual-ee-fee-cations for office press, is now all gaga over the prospect of Caroline Schlossberg (nee Kennedy) replacing Hillary Clinton as junior senator from New Yawk ??? Gimmeee a break, already!!!! Social soirees, birthright, genetic connection to the senate seat once occupied by her martyred Uncle Carpetbag Bobbie, keeping a Kennedy in the Senate as her Uncle Teddie addresses his mortality as a malignant tumor host, and not a word about qual-eeee-feeeee-cate- shuns???? Hold on, Knute!!! Me thinks there is some high level hypocrisy afoot here. If the woman is Democrat Royalty by birth, has never been elected to dogcatcher, and the celebrity and sentimental Camelot remembrances from a time not real to anyone under 50 are driving the process, I would expect the press to be all over this like freckles on a red head's butt. A crown and ermines hanging from the purple robes does not make you a qualified US Senator. But in the Democrat Party, maybe it does. If she is anointed to the job, I hope that Alec Baldwin runs against her in the next primary. I mean, keep it honest!!! At least the Habitat for Humanity director Oregon just elected to the Senate had several years in the Legislature. The Senate got a housing expert who can hold a barn raising in D.C. What does Caroline bring to the table? Can she get Chuckie Schumer into parties he now can't attend?

Yep, Bearbait, he was the Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno....Bill

Mehmnet, There are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books.
How much more regulation than that is needed?
Violent crime is highest in the places where there is the most regulation. In the UK and Australia violent crime has gone up not down since they have increased their regulations on guns.
Regulations are not followed by criminals and tyrants and because of this a disparity of force is created that favors criminals and tyrants. Regulation only disarms the innocent.
I recommend you read 400 years of gun control why isn't it working by Howard Nemerov.

Few of the intelligentsia can share the hubris of rednecked celebrants of anti-intellectualism.

So, JR,
What qualifies you as intelligentsia? Get an A on your art appreciation final or what?
And Hal...I get it. Snrk.

Hey Dave Skinner, have any quotes from articles about ungulates and their feeding patterns so you can lie about it on this thread too?

What's your point, Jakester? What do "ungulate feeding patterns" have to do with this, anyway? This thread is about guns and what Obama wants to take away -- and what he will.
If you mean ungulate MOBILITY in the face of predation patterns, well, start another thread.
Or, maybe you should write your "truth" about ungulates over your real name and send it in to a certain publication? Hmmm? Or maybe you can have Dominick Dunne ghostwrite it for ya.

Poor Davie.

You were caught in a lie in an earlier thread, and since you seem to have run away from that one, I thought you might like the credibility to go with it here.

Since you don't seem to be posting much other than some personal attacks and error filled drivel.

But it's all good, you've got your guns and no one will ever take them away, because otherwise you'll threaten them with your guns, point them in their face and tell them all about how you're just so capable of stopping the Ruskies from invading your home.

Bill Schneider, reaffirming his reputation as an easily-lied-to sucker.

Here's what we want to hear:

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY;=/www/story/12-08-2008/0004938417&EDATE;=

Anytime Obama says something like "common sense gun laws" I interpret that to mean something that take away lots and lots of guns from law abiding citizens.

Thats OK, Arthur. For most of us, our rearend puckered excessively whenever McPalin would say "My Friends".

But you go ahead an be afraid. Fear is healthy for conservatives, it will make things easier in the future.

And by the way, Go Wolverines!

Good one, Pete...
38% more Illinois gun sales in depressed November 2008 than in prosperous 2007? Gee, wonder why.
And Jay, precisely which "lie" would this be, and precisely who is the one initiating personal attacks? Kind of hard to make truly-personal attacks upon pseudonymic posters, for one thing.
Furthermore, this happens to be a gun thread and I don't see you refuting any "lies" of mine in THIS thread. So again, your point?
Shoot.

Well, Davie, I am using my real name, and at least my name still has credibility attached to it.

Unlike yours, that when you're caught in a lie, you just cut your losses and run away.

Luckily for all of these posters, you haven't yet said anything of any use, or that contains any facts to debunk. All you've done is divisive name calling about libocrats and commies and whatever else name slinging you think you can get away with.

That some fine journalism, there, Davie.

Guys, please cool it on the personal comments and stick to the issue at hand. Thanks.....Bill

Bill,

I kindly withdraw my statement that Dave Skinner is a "liar" then.

However, I would like to point out that the "Go Wolverines" mentality (as it was succinctly put above) is indicative of the gun nut NRA mentality. Or in shorter terms: "Guns make the man". The idea that stockpiling weapons for the future day when they might be "grabbed" is somehow a good idea stinks of overreaction or fear mongering by controlling forces such as the NRA.

The reality is that Obama himself can make no law, Constitutionally. While Bush twisted and created his own powers in a unary executive, (or unitary, it appears the terms are used in exchange of each other), the Republican leaning Supreme Court will most likely remind the Obama executive, in heavy handed ways, that the President is not in charge of making laws.

So while much has been said here, most of it is conjecture and spin without basis in reality.

Actually, I'm rather surprised this thread didn't turn into a "what kind of big gun do you use to compensate yourself" kind of festivity.

Ironic, isn't it: small-L liberals tend to be 'pro-choice', which results in the death of innocent babies, whether would-be or not; oppose capital punishment, which only saves GUILTY lives; and promotes universal health care, which sees c. 13M medical professionals responsible for almost 200,000 deaths from erroneous treatment annually.
Meanwhile, they oppose the 80M American gun-owners, which result in approximately 8 accidental firearm deaths daily, or c. 3,000 per year.
Yes, Democrats/liberals favor several dangerous segments of society, while fighting against one of the safest.

Blobs of protoplasm, Tim, are not babies.

And can your brush get any broader?

We're also fighting terrorism, Tim, which results in 0.1 American deaths per day. Given your cute little comparison, that fight isn't worth it either.

You're totally going to lose your bet, man.

I'd prefer that you didn't. But the handwriting is on the wall... and the floor... and ceiling... and lawn...

Do you also call persons who are adamant about protecting their 1st amendment rights "Free Speach nuts"? Honestly. Your derisive use of the term "Gun Nuts" for people who are passionate about seeing their constitutionally protected human rights upheld is extremenly degrading to your fellow citizens.

And yet it is a popular term for those that hug their guns before and after their wives every night. Fancy that.

Dear Protecting Rights is Not Nutty,

Please note the following article where I describe why I use the word, "gun nut," and yes, I would call them "Free Speech Nuts" for the same reason, because I admore both.

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/what_ive_learned_from_gun_nuts/C41/L41/

Bill

P.S. That's admire, of course.

Starting to sweat a little bit Fudd, ooops, Bill?

Scott--Nope, unless you count sweating over how I'm going to spend all the money I win on this bet.....Bill

P.S I suggest you and others stop using the word, Fudd, to describe hunters and gun owners who might not completely agree with you. It only hurts us in our collective goal of protecting the 2A by alienating people who you want on your side.

Well Elmer, tell me again WHICH guns you would "allow" and WHICH people would be allowed under your and The One's system. You don't think The One will campaign against "scoped sniper rifles"(deer rifles) or "Assault shotguns"(semi-auto shotguns). Hope you are right. But The One said this was about "change" and since he hasnt' CHANGED anything else yet, I'll bet the first thing Pelosi tells him to do is spout BS about gun laws.

Larry, do your homework. You're making us look bad. Educate yourself on what Title 10 means:

In most respects, the Army National Guard and Air National Guard are very similar to the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve, respectively. The primary difference lies in the level of government to which they are subordinated. The Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve are subordinated to the federal government while the National Guards are subordinated to the various state governments, except when called into federal service by the President of the United States or as provided for by law. For example, the California Army National Guard and California Air National Guard are subordinated to the state of California and report to the governor of California as their commander-in-chief.

This unique relationship descends from the colonial and state militias that served as a balance against a standing federal army, which many Americans feared would threaten states’ rights. The militias were organized into the present National Guard system with the Militia Act of 1903.

Besides the theoretical check on federal power, the distinction between the federal military reserves and the National Guard permits state governors to use their personnel to assist in disaster relief and to preserve law and order in times of crisis. The latter is permitted because the National Guard are not subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act unless they are under federal jurisdiction. The restrictions, however, do apply to the four of the other five reserve components just as it does with their active duty military counterparts. The United States Coast Guard and United States Coast Guard Reserve are not subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act because they are the only Armed Force of the United States that is not part of the United States Department of Defense.

Sorry, X, but this is an abuse of Posse Comatatus

"On October 1, 2008, the US Army announced that the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command (NORTHCOM), as an on-call federal response force for natural or man-made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks."

Its just so people won't get our posts confused, skinner...

Interesting day in the news. Obama buys the Presidency, or at least raised more money that I can comprehend, and then the FBI has been wiretapping the Governor of Illinois who was trying to sell the now empty Senate seat of Obama's before the end of the year and new Illinois fund raising laws go into effect.

I did hear Pres. Elect BHO deny every talking about the now empty Senate seat with the Democrat Governor of Illinois, drug from his house in the pre-dawn by Federal Agents and under orders of the US Attorney. Duh!!! That is how the direct election of Senators came about. The job was usually bought until sometime early in the 20th century when direct election became the law of the land. And evidently can still be bought.

What the Senate needs is a sign over the door telling us what you will find inside. The sign should say "Mustang Ranch." Or "Chicken Ranch."

Bill,

Maybe if returned us the same courtesy we wouldn't call you Fudd.

Your previous diatribe against "gun-nuts" (guess its ok for you to use descriptive names but we can't) reveals you to be a condescending elitist. Despite your protestations to the contrary you still don't get it.

The 2A isn't about YOUR expensive hunting guns, its about MY AR-15, or M1 Garand, etc. Its about rifles that the militia would be expected to bring (their own "private" arms) when called for service. Its about defense, defense of the country, of the state, and of the individual.

We don't need you Fudds, you need us "gun-nuts". You don't understand that even though Obama promised to eat you last, that he will still eat you.

You left off the part about the King of England, scott.

Go Wolverines!

Jay,

So making inane comments is for what purpose?

My dear scott, isn't it obvious? The term "gun nut" applies very easily to people such as yourself, that go to great lengths to justify their fixation on weaponry that is both unrealistic and unneeded in today's age. The King of England isn't going to come take over your backyard and an AR-15 is pointless in a home invasion scenario. Actual terrorism affects less than a tenth of a percent of Americans, directly, and Red Dawn was fiction.

If you want to collect powerful weaponry, just say so, don't hide behind ridiculous justifications and don't think that you can compete with a trained military or paramilitary. You won't be called up as a militia, I'm sorry to say.

Why don't you guys stop focusing on your guns and focus more on your communities and helping people? Economic disparity is more of a threat to communities than guns, or the threat of gun control. Poverty and lack of education are better indicators of imminent class violence than the prevalence of legal weaponry.

No matter what you do, you aren't helping your 2nd Amendment rights with militia style heroic wishes.

Jay,

I guess the point of your making inane comments is to demonstrate that you are clueless.

Scott,

This is not personal between us. It's not about you and me. It's about preserving gun rights. You can call me whatever you want to call me, and you basically have, and I say no problem. I've proved I can take it. I've explained in detail why I used the words "gun nut," as a positive description for what you guys do for all of us gun owners. On the other hand, you use the word Fudd in a condescending, disingenuous way to basically alienate people who might otherwise support you. I just don't think this is wise, in the board political world we live in, so think about it. We don't want gun nuts to become a smaller and smaller constituency and eventually live their self-fulfilling prophecy by being the reason the 2A went down.

Bill

scott:

and yet I'm not the one making up fantastical heroism fantasies in order to justify my desire to own and shoot weapons.

I think I'd rather be inane than delusional.

Jay,

Nowhere in my posts have I made up any "fantasitcal heroism fantasies".

It seems you are both inane and delusional.

Bill,

I don't think you support us.

Is that clear enough?

Okay, Scott, I give up. Have it your way. I don't support "us," whoever that is, but whether you like it or not, I will continue support the 2A and oppose any new gun laws (and taking some of the current laws off the books), even though I'm sure many people in my position wouldn't do this because of the way "us" reacts to anything we say.....Bill

I hope during the next four years that all weapons will have to be registered. Then, during the next four years they can be confiscated...

You're right scott, it must have been someone else using your name that wrote this:

"The 2A isn't about YOUR expensive hunting guns, its about MY AR-15, or M1 Garand, etc. Its about rifles that the militia would be expected to bring (their own "private" arms) when called for service. Its about defense, defense of the country, of the state, and of the individual."

This is what some other scott wrote, justifying their desire to own military style weapons so they can be ready to defend the country when the King of England invades their backyards.

I always hear the militia argument, and how there will never be a need for a militia in the US, and that the militia is an unrealistic idea whose time has long passed.

So who are those guys we are fighting in Afghanistan, in the streets of Iraq (the Iraqi Army was deposed in a couple of weeks long ago), and who is pirating ships trying to make it to the Suez Canal safely?

All the news is about how you can buy a Senate seat in Illinois, and one has to wonder if all the seats in Illinois have been bought, including our President Elect's Senate seat. He essentially was NOT a senator, but an occupant of a Senate seat who raised so much money in such a short time no vetting of the process was even possible. I have to wonder who might have paid to play (if Republicans are the old white guys with all the money, why didn't they spend some on McCain?). I thought that buying political office was also an anachronism, but that is proving to be a premature thought. Buying office, justice (you can buy a judgeship, no?), what else is for sale? And in the Illinois governor deal, if you peek a little bit, you know Blagojevich was angling for union jobs (SEIU) for him and his wife for life, like some sort of peerage, which in Illinois, that might be just what it is. Now we have to wonder what the Obama pay backs in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois will have to be and how we get to pay them. The leopard that is the Illinois Democrat Machine has not changed its spots.

Jay,

You still haven't quoted anything I said about "fantastical heroism fantansies".

The words of mine you quoted do however refer to the 1939 Supreme Court decision in US vs. Miller. You might read though I suspect it is above your comprehension level.

My words also refer to writings by Tench Cox, a contemporary of Madison and the other founding fathers. "Private arms" were his words in desrcibing what the 2A said was protected.

So go away troll. You are clearly inane and delusional.

scott,

As a liberal I agree with you. Jay's wrongheaded, intolerant, and bigoted views on guns do not represent me or lots of other liberals. He's lost the argument and only continues to make a fool of himself.

Bill...
How about this...if any gun control bill passes either the House or the Senate, you join NRA as a life member. Your dollars.
If Obama signs...you buy US life memberships. AND give us all your guns.
If none, we'll take up a collection to buy you either a Brady Campaign or AHSA life membership. And buy you an AR or other EBR.

Well, Dave, interesting proposition, and yes, I might agree to something like that.

First off, like you, I'll never give up my guns, so forget that part. Nor could I afford to buy "us" life memberships in any organization. I wouldn't mind having an AR-15, though, if you guys want to chip in and get one for me.

I would agree, if I lose my bet, to re-join the NRA (assuming they'd let me in, of course) and become active in the organization's efforts to protect gun rights, maybe even try to get on the board. On the other side of the bet, though, you have to join the Sierra Club or Alliance for the Wild Rockies and get active in working for more wilderness. Sound fair?

Bill

Bill, I'm already a member of the Sierra Club as well as an NRA member. I don't hunt, of course. I'm sure many other readers are NRA members as well as environmental supporters. Perhaps you were assuming that your readership doesn't care about the environment, only their guns - and this exposes your rather prejudicial thinking. Perhaps you should consider your words more carefully.

jlbraun,

I am making no such assumptions about you or any other reader, just making a one-on-one bet with Dave Skinner. I'm sure many Sierra Club members have guns and support the 2A.

Bill

First off, Amendment II Democrats: of the names you listed only 2 could be expected to side with gun owners, 3 that we don't know how they would vote and the rest are no friends of gun owners.

jlbraun: you are so far the only liberal I have read that understands about guns, the 2nd Amendment, gun control, etc. Are you sure you are not a libertarian? Any way keep up the good fight.

There seems to be many post on this site that seem to think that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting or about defending against a foreign government. The 2nd was to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic, which would include our own government if it were to become tyrannical. The AR rifle is used for hunting, competition, self defense and so on. It is just as protected by the 2nd as a Remington 870, Weatherby Mark V, Ruger 10/22 and so on.

Seth,

I'm certainly not a libertarian, as I prefer universal healthcare, large amounts of government funding for basic research, strong environmental protections, and a few other things that would make a true libertarian blanch. Basically, I'd like a neutral Swiss-style confederacy with universal militia service, Vermont-style concealed carry, and sound money.

Bill,

I'm sorry, I spoke "inartfully", kinda like Obama, so I'm certain you'll forgive me.

I should have said you don't support us "gun-nuts", or perhaps "wackjobs" as another person referred to us in a thread on another gun-rights blog.

Anyway, I don't think you support us "gun-nuts". Hell, you aren't even a member of the NRA (which is hardly an organization that engenders much respect from a lot of us nuts - many of us think its far too complacent in the fight - disclaimer - I am a Life Member for 40 odd years now). Are you a member of GOA, or for goodness sakes JFPO? Can't quite imagine you being a member of those as they are far more radical than the NRA. If you aren't even a member of the NRA I think its a fair question to ask just what the evidence is that suggest you support the "nuts", or even the average gun-owner in general.

On that note, I'm sure the NRA would take you as member, they are not THAT discerning, why aren't you? Don't you think if there were 20 million, hell even 10 million members of the NRA that gun control wouldn't even be talked about in the Congress? That would make all this silly arguments between Fudds, "prags" (pragamatists) and "gun-nuts" (or 3%'s as we are know to some) something that would never have happened.

Now, the $64,000 question, are you member of that false flag "gun-rights" organization started by ex-board members of the Brady Bunch that tried to convince us that Obama has always supported gun-owners rights? Just what "gun-rights" organizations are you a member of?

Our problem with you Bill (at least mine anyway), is -

1. you really don't seem to get that the 2A isn't about hunting (though you claim you've seen the light) - but I'll give you that one as a courtesy, though I doubt you're going to run out and buy an M1 so you can participate in US Service Rifle matches (you seem to be willing let someone give you an AR-15 if you win a bet though).

2. you pooh-pooh our "gun-nut" fears that Obama is going to pursue an aggressive anti-gun agenda. actually, its worse than that, you've dismissed entirely his threats to gun-ownership in favor of supporting him because YOU think other things in the presidential campaign are more important. that of course is your right - but, don't make us think you're stupid when you try to pretend that Obama's anti-gun baggage is not going to result in an anti-gun Obama administration, and worse, don't deride us because we're NOT STUPID in pretending that Obama isn't a SERIOUS threat to ALL gun-owners.

3. lastly, you write "tongue-in-cheek" diatribes (perhaps you need to look up that word?) deriding us "gun-nuts". when you stop doing that, then I'll at least not call you a FUDD.

deal, Bill?

Scott,

For whatever it's worth, and not much I know, I'm not a member of ANY nonprofit group, no gun groups, no environmental groups, et al, which is commen protocol for anybody in the media. But I would make an exception, if I lost my bet (and my side bet with DAve) re-join the NRA.

Bill

Bill,

All that missive from me, including an apology, and all I get is a weasling excuse for why you don't belong to the NRA.

Even it thats true, its clear that you don't like the NRA. Actually, reading your other columns, its clear you dis-like them. Seemingly enough to not be a member even in the abscence of "protocol" earned by being an "authorized journalist" (hat-tip to David Codrea at "the war on guns" blog).

You dis-like the NRA so much you're willing to blame them for Zumbo-ing Zumbo. Hell Bill, Zumbo was out the door and had collected his severance pay before the NRA knew about the controversy.

again, disclaimer - I'm a Life Member of the NRA for 40 plus years and though I have many complaints about them that doesn't mean I'm going to resign my membership.

No Bill, our little exchanges (and I do feel honored that you've singled me out for response quite a bit) and reading your other columns has showed me I do owe you a correction. On the scale of gun-owners you don't even deserve to be called a Fudd. We'll have to think up an even lower level name - say, how about, ummm, Comrade?

Bill,
There's no way I'd ever join Sierra Club...much less advocate for another square millimeter of wilderness. Further, this is a GUN argument. So we should be betting against doing something loathsome regarding guns. I like my offer.

I guess I agree with you on that one, Dave. Sorry to cross issue lines. So what gun thing should I expect from you if I win my bet? A fundraising effort to buy me my first AR-15?....Bill

A little late to be waking up and smelling the coffee now.

If you had been paying attention during the campaign, you would know that Obama never made any "promises not to push for more gun control if elected."

What he said was that he wouldn't be "coming to take our guns" that he "respects our Second Amendment rights" but that he thought he could protect them while passing "common sense" legislation like sharing trace data for propaganda purposes, punitive taxation, instituting unproven and likely prohibitively expensive technologies like microstamping and "childproofing", criminalizing private sales, etc.

His position hasn't changed, you just weren't paying attention.

Oh...and all of those measures? They're just "a good first step".

"I’m writing this column because your early moves have me worried. You could say, your words belie your words."

Well Mr. Schneider, think there might be a reason that Obama was endorsed by the AHSA, Brady Campaign, and HSUS?

Obviously you never heard the 'but' everytime he said "I support the 2A" while on the campaign trail.

As Saiorcurt noted, Obama clearly stated he WAS going to push for more 'gun control', none of which will be limited to the 'cities', and he's chosen a cabinet that will also support that agenda.

I really hope you're right and no further bans are attempted. But we all know what we get when we assume the gov't is going to act logically.

http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/

[...] Obama buyers remorse - Guns edition [...]

my comment posted here - http://ridenshoot.blogspot.com/2008/12/obama-buyers-remorse-guns-edition.html

Looks like Mr. Obama is paying as much attention to you as he is to other gun owners...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824

I never expected that there was any chance that Bill would be right in his appraisal of Obama - and I was right.

I doubt he'll keep his word on the bet either.

A question, Mr. Schneider: If Obama and the Democrats in congress try hard (including leveraging media hysteria from any convenient firearms tragedy that occurs in the next four years) to pass gun control legislation, but it fails, will you consider yourself to have won the bet?

JOhn,

The answer to your question is yes. I think political realities (if not survival) will prevail and prevent any legislation from passing. I have no doubt that many dems would like to see anti-gun bills pass, and there will be more bills introduced, but four years from now, we gun owners will not have any new national gun laws.

Bill

looks like there exists these choices

<a >herbal dietary supplement</a>

<a >herbal supplements online</a>

<a >ed herbal supplements</a>

<a >green tea herbal supplements</a>