It is also blatantly untrue. Blatantly. By the way, it was Benjamin Franklin that said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." And history has proven him right time and time again. Keeping firearms out of the hands of children is the responsibility of the parents. All it takes is education - period. Subjugating parental responsibility to the state (or Fed) is a mistake. It will not work, and never in the history of government on this planet, has.

This is so typical of the left. I'm sure the NRA wants kids playing with guns. Such a comment is what is SAD.

If you mean Liberals are the children, then yes, we don't want them to take our guns.

This weekend at the NRA convention, I noticed significant educational materials, written, and DVDs, all focused on the topic of education of families with children. The overriding message to children was don't touch, go find an adult. All materials were free, and placed prominently at the entrance to the exhibit floor. The area was well-staffed with NRA members to answer questions and provide more information. You can't say the NRA isn't focused on prevention, education, and parental responsibility for this topic. On the need for more laws, child neglect and abuse is against the law already, yet it still occurs...why? Poor parenting, I think.

Jake. Do you even know what you're saying? Of course not. Why do you need regulation for law-abiding citizens when you can't regulate criminals. Criminals DON'T CARE what law you make. All you are doing is PROMOTING crime and the ability & means to get by with it. Plus, you create more victims of those crimes and ILLEGAL guns. You still don't get it. You want to take away someone's right to defend your life from one of those criminals.

Are you so stupid that you need the government to tell you not to let kids play with guns? I'm not. I need no such law. And I'll bet you 99.8% of the people who went to the NRA convention, already knew that. Who knows, there may have been a .2% liberal population down there. But I will GUARANTEE you, that isn't something you need to tell an NRA member, OR their kids. THINK. Don't just spew out some mess someone told you in order to evoke an emotional response. Grow-up & learn the difference.

What regulations would you accept for "speech safety"? How much training would you require before you could worship safely?

I may think that training is wise (very wise, in fact) but the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated right.

I definitely agree with you Philly

Although, at the time it was written, "infringe" meant to defeat completely rather than its modern meaning. If we go by the original meaning, regulation of firearms does not completely defeat the right to bear arms and so does not infringe that right.

"Do some checking, and see what this President and Hillary are scheming with the United Nations to have control; over guns in the United States."

Sorry Bob, it doesn't work that way. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you can't be bothered to back up such silliness with even a shred of evidence, why should we do your work for you? I see nonsensical statements like the above frequently in forums like this; it's time people who make such statements are called on the carpet for their lack of critical thinking on this and other important issues of the day.

Bob,

I noticed Earl didn't say you were wrong. Nor did he provide any facts to back up his arguement. :-)

Reread my comment Glenn, thanks!

"Do some checking, and see what this President and Hillary are scheming with the United Nations to have control; over guns in the United States."

"Bob", please, cite at least one reputable source for this outrageous claim?

Still waiting Bob!

Good point. Normally I'd say the Second Amendment reads as follows; The right to bear arms and arm bears and to keep arms in your household. This also presupposes that the weapons owner did teach weapons safety to all in his/her household. I would also point out that a 19 year old mother did bear arms against an aggressor in her household. No charges have yet to be filed.

Respectfully, do you even know what an assault weapon is? One can take a perfectly legal Ruger 10/22, change the stock and "poof" it is illegal.

Nothing changed on the firearm as far as it's function. Same capacity, same range. Only cosmetic.

Assault weapon bans are whimsical and as such are lousy laws.

"Very generally speaking, a semi-automatic firearm is ... an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a muzzle brake." (Wikipedia)

So yes, Tim, in response to your question, "Do you even know what an assault weapon is?", apparently I do.

Isn't The Internet wonderful? Next question?

No Earl. Government regulation is the REASON for the 2nd Amendment. If you get assaulted by a criminal, how close to death will you or yours have to get before you wish there was an armed law-abiding citizen there to protect you? You just want to regulate, you don't undersand what the consequences are of those regulations. For some reason, you think the government should be the parent, or even the savior of everything, when you can't find one single example of those regulations working, much less producing the desired result. The current state of the economy, the housing crisis, and the job market are what's resulted from EXTENSIVE regulation in those areas, how is this any different. Why do you always want to invite in a failure in to fix your problems, when in most cases, they ARE your problem. "Shall not be infringed upon" is the end of the sentence. There is NO "unless". PS- the Constitution has better ideas than any your lovely government could ever come-up with these days. The proof is ALL around you.

Actually an assault weapon is any weapon that has automatic and semi automatic features available to the shooter. The requirement that the weapon have a folding stock, pistol grip, etc... is one that manufacturers have insisted on. As far as an alternate to the NRA, it depends if you want to skeet shoot or just hunt. There is a skeet shooters group and a hunters only group. Neither belong to the NRA and neither get national attention except during the Olympics.

Do you really want to go there Kevin Lane? Do you really want to engage in a battle of wits, half-armed as you are?

Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous of you to tell me how I feel on every one of the issues you have enumerated? With all due respect (and frankly, you deserve very little), you have no idea who I am or how I feel on any of those things.

The question is "Are firearm regulations too strict?"; every other stance you ascribe to me (with no supporting evidence whatsoever) is simply a distraction and a non-sequitur.

I did get a good belly laugh out of this quote of yours though: "PS- the Constitution has better ideas than any your lovely government could ever come-up with".

Kevin, you do realize The Constitution is what laid out the framework for our current system of government, don't you? Don't you?

Earl you are wrong again. The definition you gave of an assault weapon is merely the one fostered by those who would ban guns. Phillip is partly right in that a true assault rifle must be capable of both fully automatic and semi-automatic fire. There is no requirement that an assault rifle have any other cosmetic features. Detachable magazines, pistol grips, etc., merely make them more effective for their designed purpose. Defining them by using cosmetic features is just how some people try to make legal semi-automatic firearms seem evil so they can make them illegal. Oh, one more thing. A "High power assault rifle" is an oxymoron. By definition an assault rifle is in a medium powered caliber.

Thanks for the clarification, Glenn. I love shooting guns but I don't know much about them. By the way, what I learned came from Wikipedia. If you are sure you are correct (and can source what you say), do you mind fixing the Wikipedia entry?

Why give a municipality any support (read$$$) if they are fighting against your basic beliefs. The Southern Baptist convention visits us here in STL as well. If we banned their beliefs, do you think they would come here?

Ah, but Ellen, they DID know tyranny, and the point of the second ammendment is to allow protection from tyranny. So, if governments have more sophisticated weapons, perhaps the founders would agree that perhaps the People need more sophisticated weapons, too. Please know that the hype about "assault weapons" is just that--what is labeled "assault" is based upon ugly looks alone. Many deer rifles are more effective than some stupid black "assault" weapons--it is only politics. Semi-automatic only implies the way the bullet feeds into the gun. You still have to pull the trigger for each shot. Machine guns--fully automatic weapons--require specific licensing and finger printing, and a $200 transfer tax for each purchase. Banning things only ensures that decent people won't own them. Believe me that criminals do not stop to read the rules and regulations. Those silly signs in stores disallowing concealed carry will NOT stop someone with bad intent. Do people really think the armed robber will not come in because of the sign? So yes, we can consider sensibly disallowing those who have lost their rights through legal action, due to conviction of crime, to own weapons. However, we must also realize that their past has shown us that they do not always follow the rules. Thus, we are responsible for protecting ourselves, and the government should not hinder decent, law-abiding citizens from doing so.

Very specific on the pen thing, but mass destruction? I don't think the NRA had any nuclear bombs or biological weaponry downtown. But we understand, you say something menial that "sounds" like you know something, then you blow things way out of proportion then suggest the saviour (to you, regulation) come in and "fix" it. "Arms" laws keep getting more & more stringent, crime rises, the 2nd Amendment fades away, and it still isn't enough for you regulation-addicts. How did you forget the last set of laws you made already? Do you know why you still need MORE regulation? Not because the laws aren't tight enough, but because they don't work. You will always need more. Why don't we just follow the Constitution that created the greatest and most prosperous country the planet has ever seen, instead of inviting an more than eager government to go ahead & take it away. Your rights may not mean much to you, but mine will remain inalienable.

Actually Ms. Jean, that is not accurate. It may "seem" to have not changed, but in those areas of CA with the most restrictive regulations the violent crimes have steadily increased over the last decade. You will need to go somewhere like the DOJ web site to get the facts. The mass media is not interested in reporting that their bias is rather inappropriate, and severely flawed.

Where are you referring to Mac the Gun?
Checked out UCR, and no county in northern California had an increase in violent crime over the last decade. In fact, all of them decreased.

Hunting is NOT what the Constitution protects. We do NOT have a right to hunt. We do have a natural right to protect ourselves, emphasized by the 2nd amendment...NOT granted by the 2nd amendment.

Actually, we do have a natural right to fish and fowl. It is not in the constitution because it was already in the charter of every colony and an inherent part of common law at the time. The right to hunt is a far stronger right than the right to bear arms.
Also, we have a natural right to defend ourselves, not a natural right to protect ourselves. There is a clear distinction there that becomes very important in a discussion like this. A natural right to protect yourself is preemptive. A right to defend yourself is reactive. Think of this in terms of nation-states if you want an easy way to see the distinction.

Thank you Earl for your sourced reply.

Whatever Earl, You & I know that today's government has no respect for the Consititution. (Freedoms are being stripped daily.) And I will apologise for applying those attributes to you, but you didn't deny any of them, nor have you proved that they are incorrect assumptions. In addtion, no-one called you any names, that's reserved for liberals in an argument they can't win. "Shall Not Be Infringed Upon" - So, now that you've distracted from the point, called names, and sound just like one of those people who think they are more 'elightened' than everyone else, including our forefathers. Since all you did with the distraction & name-calling was act like someone else was talking off-point, when that's exactly what you were doing. Transparent and predictable. Maybe I don't know you, but you have yet to dissappoint in the predictable department. Deal with it. Now, call me another name or two, then you'll be right again.

Kevin Lane, your apology is accepted, thanks.

Now, why do you say I "called names"?? Why would you say such a thing, when it isn't true? And so easily shown not to be true (go ahead, look, I'll wait)?

and thankfully due to the castle doctrine laws you no longer are. You can thank NRA-ILA for that one.

no one is.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." -- Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies, 1990

Congratulations "Jim" on continuing to show Mike Godwin's prescience, 22 years later.

Missouri put concealed carry up for a state vote, and against long odds (NRA spent millions) the people voted it down. Then the legislature put it thru the back door anyway - forcing a rules upon the people that the people voted against.

Seems like people that like guns sure like to write editorials and bombard comment sites. What are you all so afraid of?

That's why there is required training in the CCW statutes.

Not sure what you are talking about. 1999 was long before Robin Carnahan was secretary of state/with power to change a ballot. The rights of voters were trumped by the NRA and it's disproportionate level of political power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Proposition_B_(1999)

As far as the fear factor - that's what sells the guns. Knock yourself out.

Some might say that "Fear" is the selling point you are using for regulation. You're afraid that without regulation... (state your fear)

That's hilarious. I didn't know a multi-billion dollar anti-gun industry existed.

That's hilarious. I didn't know a multi-billion dollar anti-gun industry existed.
ever heard of Sarah Brady?

Integr, The NRA's budget is $307 million and the Brady Campaign's budget Is less than $4 million (~1% of the NRA's). Seems to me you just proved Striek's point. Thanks for playing!

Earl: I think the point he was trying to make is that there is no sizeable ANTI-Gun group out there, I say Sarah Brady and the many many others as listed here
http://www.georgiapacking.org/links_antigun.php
Prove there is a large anti-gun group that is selling regulation with fear.
I will defend what NRA is doing in the same way the left defends other civil rights when they say "you can't leave civil rights up to the whim of the voters" This means even if a town votes to be say..All white, they can't do that just like you can't be a No Gun town. These rights are protected BEYOND the vote of the people.

I get what you're trying to say, "Integ"; really, I do. And I understand your point when you say, "I say Sarah Brady and the many many others as listed here
http://www.georgiapacking.org/links_antigun.php prove there is a large anti-gun group that is selling regulation with fear."

It's just that the groups you point to have budgets on the order of 1% of The NRA's budget (or less). In my mind, this clearly demonstrates the OPPOSITE of what you state. The fact that their budget is 1/100 of The NRA's proves that they are no match for the big money Washington insiders at NRA.

You may be surprised to learn I actually substantially agree with your 2nd point!

Whatever kind it says in the Constitution.

That has been discussed many times, and the definition of a well regulated Militia is "the people of this country" Of course there is a ton of paper work to back this up that I am not going to print here, but if you look you will find it.

Rather than to quote Wiki, I used US Code
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So this means just about everybody.

Integr: reread the Second Amendment. It specifically refers to an "organized" militia. The US code that you reference so nicely (10 USC § 311), defines an organized militia as "the National Guard and the Naval Militia" (10 USC § 311(b)(1)). That's it!

You said "So this means just about everybody". Sorry, but it really doesn't! Again, it means exactly what it says, members of "the National Guard and the Naval Militia" and that is it.

Thanks for the education, Philip! You obviously know a lot, and I learned a lot.

With that in mind, it makes even less sense that The NRA doesn't want any controls whatsoever on assault weapons... just my opinion, which others are free to disagree with.

Earl, the definition that is commonly used in the context of this discussion is a wrong one, but still is the one Bill Clinton used for his ban back in the 90's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
This explains it pretty well.
It is this definition that NRA is referring to when they say they are opposed to it, Machine guns have been illegal since 1933 for non FFL dealers.
But I would not be opposed to making them legal. You can do a lot more damage with a 50 lb. bag of fertilizer than you can with most guns.

The constitution and forefathers were not infallible...Good folk and a good document, but let's not get crazy -times were different then.

Just look at the next amendment "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." How the heck does that apply to this day and age? (I'm sure some more constitutional mental gymnastics are forthcoming.)

Where is the behemoth lobbying group protecting our 3rd amendment rights? You never know ...the big bad government may be fixin to put soldiers up in your house -got to protect the house.

There you go though RDBet, now we're back on the subject. Rights infringement. Isn't that the issue we're talking about. (Thinkin' about seein' if Striek wants to join my trivia team, excellent pull on that 'doesn't get enough attention' 3rd Amendment there man, but peep this...)

You work. Someone else sits at home. You pay for his/her stuff including the home he sits in. That's just as dumb as worrying about whether or not a soldier might ever ask to seek shelter in your home, but if one does, will you let him/her bring a firearm?

Thanks for those interesting facts Tony! But the NRA doesn't want anyone to know the truth... then where will they get their million$$?

I should be able to own a firearm at the extreme end of the spectrum if I so desire. Gun regisration leads to confiscation, look at Great Britain, they registered it all then when they had all of them registered, they took them away. All one has to do is read what Thomas Jefferson and other forefathers wrote about freedom, liberty, and guns, it then becomes quite clear. If Johnny Appleseed wanted to own a canon, then under the constitution he can, of course one has to be responsible and no amount of laws or rules will force responsibility, all it does is make government larger and taxes higher. Knives are weapons, everyone buys them, big ones, little ones, they are just as lethal, do we need to make laws to regulate those as well, what about pencils, I could stab someone with one those too. Hammers, screwdrivers, that's a lot more laws, but I guess we'll get there someday.

There are far more knife regulations than firearm regulations.
Probably because historically knifes were the weapons of choice for the poor who could not afford firearms.

Kevin, you seem like a good guy and I'm sure you're a responsible gun owner. On this issue (owning whatever you want without regulation) I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree. All that can and should be said on the matter seems to have been said already, so good luck and thanks for the discussion.

In the Virginia Declaration of Rights (written just before the US Constitution) militia is defined: "A well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State." Note: "natural" & "the body of the people."

The Bill of Rights was written to protect individual states, and the people within them from the centralized power being created. There would have been no reason to include the right to keep and bare arms in the Bill of Rights, if the rights being protected were the rights of the federal "State," as in the United "State"s. The Bill of Rights was written to express the natural rights of the people--not to grant rights from the fed. government. Remember in the arguments againt the Bill of Rights, many thought the Bill was not needed, because the rights were natural and obvious!

If your argument is that it was only the individual State being protected (and not the people of the state), I do not think the Constitution would have said, "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." Instead, it would then have said something like, "the right of the States to keep supplies of arms and use them..."

Ursula: reread the Second Amendment. It specifically refers to an "organized" militia. The US code defines an organized militia as "the National Guard and the Naval Militia" (10 USC § 311(b)(1)). That's it!

You Imply that this means just about everybody. Sorry, but it really doesn't! Again, it means exactly what it says, members of "the National Guard and the Naval Militia" and that is it.