Are "gun-rights" advocates who say they "need" combat-style weaponry to "protect the nation from dictatorship" dangerous anarchists who are endangering the REAL Second-Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans with their paranoid, anti-government rants?

Background checks sound great, and mental health checks sound reasonable however.....who makes the decision if a person is compitant? What if having a strong political opinion that was out of step with those in office was deemed radical?. You don't think it can happen? As a Japanese American who was around in WW2.

Munster where in the constitution do you find that right??

It does not matter if you feel there is a reason or not dum dum. There is no authority to deny the ownership by the Federal govt .

While the socialists here wish to make this a need or don't need thing, the real debate is if th Federal govt has the authority under the Constitution to tell us what guns we may own or not. They of course do NOT have that authority that is why they are appealing to emotion and morons like Fred and Munster.

I didn't think you could aswer that simple question Munster keep squawking, Like the parrot you don't know what you are saying you just like the noise. Here's your cracker.

What a stupid argument! Grenades and mines have never been legal for civilians. You used to be able to purchase explosives, IF you had a valid use for them, with a signature. Now, to even possess explosives requires a blasting license from the BATFE.

Fun fact, the "AR" style rifle was originally made for, and sold to the civilian market, in .308 caliber. When the military adopted a modified version chambered in .223, the original manufacturer, Armalite sold the patent to Colt because they didn't have the production facility capable of producing the quantities the government needed.

There are a million things some Americans have that others don't have, yet nobody is expecting them to justify why they need, or want them. I own one for 2 reasons. One, I could afford to buy one. Two, because I wanted one. I'd shot the same caliber rifle in the Army, I enjoyed shooting them. The same reason I own and shoot M-1 Carbines. The same reason I own and shoot 1911 style pistols.

None

Freddie, you don't "need" a car capable of going 100 MPH either, have you turned your car in yet?

I enjoy target shooting, with a variety of firearms in a variety of calibers. Need doesn't apply to the argument. The FACT is a very small number of firearm deaths each year in America involve any style rifle. The majority of firearm related deaths stem from shooters using handguns. Usually young budding criminals gunned down by their rivals. More young children die each year from rounds shot by these budding criminals, that are intended for their rival, but shooting a handgun sideways just doesn't insure much accuracy, it don't work the way the movies show it.

The decision in Heller stated that "entire classes of firearms, in common use" could not be banned by government. Yes, I know, the firearm in question in that case was a semi-auto handgun, but the principle remains the same.

You lefties always ask do we need an AR 15. What makes the difference what you think I need or don't need. The the fact is the Federal Govt should not have the power to tell a law abiding citizen what rifle or handguns they can own. Show me where they have the power to ban anything.

... And Munster is correct! You are NOT "losing any Second Amendment rights". There are lots of other kinds of weapons at your disposal - i.e. the keyboard is mightier than the AK-47! Hey, Lewis Wetzel used a muzzle-loader and he "did alright" as a frontier-era serial killer - but, of course, he could only kill ONE Indian at a time before reloading ...

So Stick and the others STILL refuse to say why they think they "need" to own combat-style weapons ... Do they "need" these weapons - which are "combat" weapons because many former military personnel say they are - because shooting them at a range (the ONLY place where most of them are actually used) gives them an adrenaline "rush", OR do they "need" them because they imagine that the "British are coming" to reclaim their former colony, OR do they "need" them because these weapons make them feel like "Rambo"? If either of the last two reasons is the case, there is a possibility that they think they "need" such weapons and endless amounts of ammo because they are CRAZY, and crazy people should not own guns! Duh! Come on guys! Fess up! Which is it? We won't tell anyone your little secret!

I never said it was in the Bible. And look around a little, there's lots of people doing all kinds of stuff that isn't mentioned in the Bible, yet they say they're saying they're doing it in the name of the Lord.

I suggest you read up a bit on the how's and why's of our founders creating our Constitution. They originally didn't see a need to include the Bill of Rights into the Constitution, as they felt those liberties would never be questioned by our government.

Thank God they did include them, morons like you would have ranted and raved to remove them from our country long ago.

Franklin said if you choose to give up liberties in order to gain security, you'll have neither.

Munster meant to say . . . Yes, he is not able to see the truth for what it is and he sits around in denial.

FACT: There is no legitimate reason for law abiding citizens to NOT be armed with whatever style firearm that is legal on this date!

The only people who think otherwise are simply parroting the anti-gun mantra of their God, Obama!

poochurner- are you still with us?

Freddie, they're not enforcing the law with the existing background check system, where are all the new jails to house even those found breaking those laws? And you think it's logical to enact even more laws they can't (or won't) enforce?

A woman and her father up my way bought firearms for a nutcase from down near McConnelsville. He lived out by Enon, OH. And on 1 January 2011, he shot a Clark County Deputy. It took better than a year for this female "straw purchaser" to be sent to prison. Her father still remains free to walk the streets.

You can feel free to do that "turn the other cheek" deal if you wish. I'd prefer having a little more to help me out defending myself against someone seeking to injure (or kill) me.

"Yeah and there's cops out there that will argue that point !"

YES, and a faction of those cops that do are political appointees of mayors that are shoving their own the gun control agenda. Their livelihood depends upon them siding with the mayor.

That bunch of officers, that stood behind Obama in Colorado (April 3,2013), didn't look all that enthusiastic to be 'backing him up'. You could almost pick out the ones that voted for him (snicker).

And isn't "Clear and Transparent" Obama a little more utilitarian in releasing his pronouncements on the lawn of the WH, instead at large PUBLIC gatherings? The applause you hear coming from that captive audience, to his drivel, is being generated by the WH staff. What an agreeable bunch they are...since their job depends on it.

Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens

By Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett

(cato)

“Of the gun-control legislation proposed at the federal level, 71 percent of officers said a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime and 96 percent of officers said banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.”

. . .

Cops say gun control proposals do nothing to stop crime

By Greg Sowinski

(limaohio)

(limanews)

Gun debate revives questions about self-defense

By Adam Geller

(The Associated Press)