Joel broke one of the rules listed at the bottom of this page: writing something false about people to damage their reputation--nothing new there--and calling me/us "crazy."

The Second Amendment was never intended for hunting, Joel. Why was it included in the Bill of Rights, Joel? To make some hillbillies feel better about signing into the USA? No. Coming from a place like Great Britain, they had the possibilities fresh in their mind about how state police can get too far overreaching. (But that couldn't happen here, could it?)

To other commenters: How to fight a government army of tanks, jets, bombs? Guerilla-warfare. It's worked in the past (read: US Revolution) here and in many places and times abroad. If you're confused about who to shoot at in a revolution, read Unintended Consequences by John Ross. (Best book I've ever read.) Answer: local feds of your choice, gradually moving up the chain.

BTW, it wasn't the police, the perpetually-victimized, or the do-gooders that saved my pregnant wife and I from being accosted by a group of thugs. It wasn't even my rights, ironically! It was my .45 ACP, locked, loaded, and ready for just that type of situation. Luckily for THEM I didn't have to use it--they're not so tough against a 5'6" 150-lb man with a pistol. As I was saying, it wasn't my right to bear arms that saved me, because it's not even recognized here in Kalifornia; it was my gun and me. That's it. On my own.

Unfortunately, my Mom didn't have a gun when she was victimized. We were far too poor to afford a handgun. She used a knife in her own defense, but police the promptly relieved her of it, all the while demanding, "what are you doing out this late at night!?!"

Joel, you fail to make numerous connections in your article, so allow me to help. All those gunowners that have never shot anybody (like myself): they will if they need to. If anybody owns a weapon for self-defense, they've already considered the pros and cons of doing so.

I wonder which of those rights you would be willing to fight (and die!) for. Thousands of early Americans knew the answer to that one, and they had no guarantee of how things would turn out. They were simply willing to lay down their lives for something much bigger than them.

To liberals, unfortunately, nothing is worth dying over. Not family, not freedom, not anything. To them, getting hit by a drunk driver is more honorable than drowning while trying to save a child, simply because it furthers their agenda, which, simply put, is "those people scare me, can't we control them?"

You keep trying, Joel. The freedom nuts out here with me have confidence in your ability to eventually grasp what's logical and right.

So to that end, I recommend you find and read "Imagine A World Without Guns," an essay widely available on the internet.

OK, here is the big question??:
When these left wing newspapers go BANKRUPT, and yes they ARE all going under. Just look at circulation, sales,revenues, stock prices, ext of the major newspapers.
.
So what then happens to ole Joe, and all these far left lunatic columnists? Ideally they can get a job at the post office job as some disgruntled government malcontent. If no job is available in government, you can always get a job shoveling s$it some place.

Joel is just another lamestream-media liberal with tired ideas, frantically piling up strawmen in an attempt to go out in a glorious blaze of journalistic arson.

Hey, Joel, Google the following phrase:

Battle of Athens

A corrupt machine gains a stranglehold on government, defying all attempts to unseat them by responding with violence, terrorism, and blatant election fraud. A group of heroic gun owners self-organize to battle the machine through force of arms, and are ultimately victorious.

Joel calls this a "science fiction movie." The rest of us call it "documented US history."

Thank you for playing Joel. I have a Lovely Parting Gift for you. Where should I put it?

Just another "Journalist" who knows nothing about weapons and talks out of his ass.

What he calls "military-style street sweepers" and "assault weapons" are in fact nothing more than semi automatic rifles.

Assault weapons are select fire,single round,burst or full auto.The average American citizen will not jump through the hoops to get a full auto weapon legally.

This is just another liberal who supports terrorists trying to destroy freedom around the world.

Hey Joel, you're still ignorant and your journalism skills are sad.

Listen to this 911 call :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml...

The sweeping victory for gun control has been one of the most under reported stories of the election. This is largely because it was immediately overshadowed by the trendy post election narrative of spiking gun sales and runs on assault weapons.
In recent weeks, it seems as if every TV news program and newspaper in the country has featured some variation on the following story: Anxious Americans are cleaning out their local gun stores in anticipation of a.) Barack Obama's radical anti-gun agenda; b.) social chaos engendered by economic collapse; or c.) both.
These stories lead to even MORE people buying guns. Good.

Nobody can accuse Obama of campaigning dishonestly on the issue of gun control. The nation's first modern urban president repeatedly explained that his understanding of the Second Amendment included the need for restrictions aimed at reducing gun violence, especially in the cities. In a sign that he intended to win on the issue by shooting straight with voters, he even mentioned his gun-control agenda during his Denver acceptance speech, challenging the idea that gun control was a third rail that guaranteed defeat in states like Ohio and Virginia.

As codified in his urban policy platform, Obama consistently advocated for increasing law enforcement's ability to trace guns by reinstituting tracking legislation repealed by the Bush administration; closing the famous "gun show loophole" that allows gun buyers to avoid background checks; mandating additional safety features on U.S.-manufactured guns; and resurrecting the expired ban on assault weapons and making it permanent.
Not only do Obama and Biden have strong gun control records, the incoming attorney general is a one-man gun control lobby unto himself. As deputy A.G. in the Clinton administration, Eric Holder advocated federal licensing requirements for handguns, a three-day waiting period on some gun sales and rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month. More recently, he signed an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia's handgun ban when it came before the Supreme Court.

Then you say: "The fact is, if you believe you need your gun to fight off our government to save democracy then you ARE on the "fringe" and should probably seek psychological help" - The fact is?! I see no fact there.
Who believes we will fight our "govt."? Like the politicians will come for my guns... they will send soldiers like me. I say right now that will not happen.

Try to understand. You may pass all the gun control legislation you like. We will not obey it. For seventy years you have pushed us back from the free exercise of our God-given, inalienable rights, bleating “public safety” as your excuse to the ovine flock. Are we more safe? All you have done with “gun free zones” is create criminal free-fire zones. You seek to make the entire country a disarmed Mumbai, helpless to resist criminals, terrorists or predatory government. And now you want us to trust that your intentions are not tyrannical once again?

The time may be fast approaching when you will wish ardently for the protection of the hapless GOP and the wobbly NRA. Dance on that happy thought...

Diplomat, You're stereotypes and intended insults just prove your own ability to be "far out there". So "diplomatic".

PanamaRed says: "Where were all you right wing nuts when Bush was trashing the constitution?" Myself, I was in Iraq watching my people, and thousands of others, die. Not worrying about the rights of terrorists, but of innocent people. You say Obama won't "worry" about the gun laws? Watch, pay attention. He will as soon as possible. The fact that you, and others I'm sure, don't think so, played out exactly the way THE BRADY BUNCH hoped. With Obama’s undeniable record on guns, his claim that he will “uphold the Second Amendment” is as credible as a serial rapist opining on the glories of chastity.

To All The 2nd Amendment Haters,
It isn't about hunting and sportsmen, it's about defense. It's about liberty. It's about control of one's own destiny and not being subject to political winds and commonly held misconceptions. It's a last line of defense against tyranny. Foreign or domestic, government, mob or lone criminal, tyranny prefers unarmed victims. The need for arms is steeped in political history that extends well beyond American history.

People keep mistakenly referring to America as a democracy. America was founded as a republic, with liberty at it's core. Perpetuating America as a democracy is a disservice. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep protesting the outcome of that vote.

Foolish people who don't understand history can easily be conned into voting away their rights and protections. We the people are currently enamored with making others responsible for huge amounts of their lives. Things like safety, protection, welfare, education, retirement, housing, etc., etc., etc. No one wants to be responsible for themselves and their families. They want the government to do it for them. It's sad and it's counter to everything our founding fathers fought and died for. Our soldiers man the front lines not to make our lives cushy and soft, but to provide us with freedom and the opportunity to better our lives.

No one believes that armed citizens can defeat a standing army toe to toe. What we believe is that through our convictions and our will to defend our rights, up to and including armed defense, we can resist tyranny. We can defeat the will of a standing army to massacre it's own citizens in pursuit of a utopian fantasy that's detrimental to the very foundation of our republic.

So before you spout off about no rational reason to own the often mislabeled "assault weapon", keep in mind that they do their jobs quite effectively while sitting in safes and closets all across the country. The most effective shot is the one that never has to be fired. The mere ability to fire it is what matters most.

Simply stated, Obama WILL continue to pursue a gun control agenda that's far left of the mainstream moderate position of the American people. The debate over whether Bush has been or Obama will be more detrimental to the constitutional rights of the American people is a red herring. They're both bad for America and neither is interested in upholding ALL the rights of the people. They simply differ in which ones they choose to defend and which ones to trample. Neither is worse than the other, they're both terrible.

The ignorance displayed by this columnist is astonishing. His position lacks even a shred of credibility. It seeks to replace history and logic with shrill hysteria. It seeks to demonize gun owners as unstable threats. Skewing the gun control debate with illogical, unfactual histrionics is intellectually dishonest, not to mention lazy, shoddy journalism.

But hey, negativity sells, so I'm sure the Gazette will continue to publish this sham of a journalist. Everyone has a right to spout ignorant viewpoints, it's just sad to see the worst of them provided a bully pulpit, regardless of which side of the debate they're on. :(

WHAT AN IDIOT! Angus, you too are an IDIOT for even considering printing this crap! You should be ashamed of yourself for being so sickeningly biased!
This far left nut is talking without any sense. How many negative Emails did he have? How many were what he described?
Where is the article showing the other side of the story? I, being a graduate of political science, as well as an Iraq War veteran, would be happy to write one for you.

This guy is a riot. "People wrote to me from all over the country" hahaha...
.
SURE THEY DID!
Some two bit, obscure, political hack from WI, and letters from all over the country flocked in to him for his BRILLIANT ranting. A diatribe he spewed that everyone laughed about; in that a 6th grader could have been more insightful.
.
That's actually what he leads this article with. So RIGHT AWAY you know the guy is a narcissist. He then proceeds to talk about those "fringe" anti government people. Gee, perhaps this guy should look into the mirror to see what those on the fringe are all about!

I would love to know where the original writer got his facts from? Where did you hear about military style assault weapons from? Do you even know what one of those are?

Hey, don't get to excited about the rantings of this looney tune McNally. He is like the ungroomed, wild-eyed, smelly fellow who stands on the sidewalk and screams invective at passing motorists. Don't feel sorry for this one, but ignore him and look straight ahead with your doors locked and your hand on your self defense mechanism, whatever it may be. I think McNally took way too much of something and never quite came down.

I finally had to weigh in on this one. Joel, you picked the wrong issue to pick a fight. I have to agree with the gun owners. Its their right to possess arms, and don't tread on it. When you intentionally poke a hornet's nest for sport, expect to get stung. My advice, quit poking.

After reading some of these posts, I am dismayed by the number of ignorant and irrational comments from those who believe that Obama will somehow either gut the 2nd amendment and/or lead this country down the path of destruction. I believe in free speech, but I would think that those who take the time to post a comment would perform (at the very least) a minimal amount of fact checking. Mr. McNally is simply pointing out that, quite correctly, "We save democracy through the constitutional process" not by the "stockpile (of) military assault weapons and plenty of ammo. He uses satire (def. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.), to point out absurd idiosyncrasies within our society. The fact is, if you believe you need your gun to fight off our government to save democracy then you ARE on the "fringe" and should probably seek psychological help. What's really laughable is that ANYONE thinks the Bush administration "kept us safe". Bush put himself at the same level of the terrorists by authorizing torture and suspending habeas corpus. He gave us ample proof that he lacked the competence to govern this nation. Compare what Bush started with and what President Obama has inherited, then in 4 years we'll compare notes. Until then better watch out for the "government types" hiding in your bushes.

Nobody in America NEEDS any "rational justification" for owning an assault rifle, any more than we need any "rational justification" for owning a car that can exceed 150 MPH.

This is because America is about FREEDOM. If you WANT something, that ALONE is sufficent for you to obtain it, provided that you can pay for it, of course.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." ...that's right from the Communist Manifesto. The concept of having only what you NEED is a Communist ideal that has NO PLACE IN THIS CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

There is no gun that should NOT be available to any law-abiding citizen, because ANY gun is lethal in the WRONG hands. .22 pistol or .50 caliber Barrett M82 rifle, or full auto M16A2,
or .30-30 bolt-action deer rifle, it doesn't
make a bit of difference. Only the intent of the user matters. A person who intends to commit a violent crime is DANGEROUS even if he's completely unarmed. A person who has NO intention of committing a crime or harming anyone is NOT a danger, PERIOD, no matter what
kind of gun(s) he may have.

People who want to ban guns are the enemies of those who love freedom and the friends of criminals. Because criminals like their victims unarmed.

Where were all you right wing nuts when Bush was trashing the constitution? He has abused the civil rights of more Americans over the last eight years than any gun restriction law ever could. There is a fringe on the left that think all guns should be banned and a fringe on the right that think all guns should be legal. The fact is there are weapons (guns included) being manufactured that should not be made available to the general public. If any of the NRA leadership really had a brain, they would take a leading role in shaping the type of gun policies that allow hunters and sportsmen to pursue their passion while making it harder to obtain guns for those who shouldn't possess them. It will NEVER be possible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals but current legislation allows far too many guns to get into the "wrong" hands. For a start, background checks should be more comprehensive. NO ONE has posted a RATIONAL justification for owning an assault weapon. And finally, is anyone really stupid enough to think President Obama doesn't already have more to worry about than the 2nd amendment? Talk about paranoid.

There are four boxes of freedom. The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. There is a reason for each of them and further more the order is very important. The 2nd Amendment is one of the checks and balances against bad government. Sadly the last 8 years have shown a failure and been some of the worst years of government. At the same time we can't allow Obama to continue this trend of bad government. Obama would like nothing better then to violate the 2nd Amendment.

Gun owners have largely learned that like the British and Germans appeasement does not work. We give a fraction of an inch from "shall not be infringed" and gun banners try to take a mile. So of course you are getting lots of angry replies as you should. There is nothing common sense about firearm laws, the real irony is often times take two firearms that function identically. One in a sporter configuration and one in a military style and the sporter will be legal, yet there is nothing beyond cosmetics.

One thing I'd love to see you define is a "military-style street sweepers". If you are as ignorant as your lunatic rantings make you appear you won't be able to.

Another thing to consider is that gun owners are one of the most law abiding segments of the population. I've been through more background checks this year then most people will go through in their lives, I even chose to acquire a short-barreled rifle and go through a more intensive Sheriff and BATF background check.

So "thediplomat" thinks that people with small arms would never be a match for a military with tanks, bombs, aircraft and mortars.

Iraq is full of guys with small arms and we (with all our planes and tanks) have been there for five and a half years.

This is what happens when we let uneducated, politically biased morons parade around as journalists. I was a Broadcast Journalism major in college, and we were taught better than this.
--
The men who wrote the US Constitution explicitly stated that citizens were to remain armed to act as a check & balance against the governemnt. Without a check & balance, the government has no reason to listen to the people.
--
To avoid embarassing himself, I would suggest that the author needs to educate himself by reading the writings of the founding fathers, where they clearly explain the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
--
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-George Washington, speech of Jan. 7, 1790
--
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson
--
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught, especially when young, how to use them."
-Federal Farmer (Antifederalist Letter, No.18, 25 January 1778)

In the 232 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, not one single gun law has EVER achieved its alleged goal of stopping crime. You can NOT eliminate criminal INTENT by BANNING something or restricting the right of the honest citizens to own or use it.

Every gun law, and I do mean EVERY one of them, is a misguided attempt to legislate personal choice.

It has NEVER worked.

It WILL NEVER work.

The only thing you could do to help is to tighten up our broken criminal justice system.
It's full of weak prosecutors and permissive judges who let the guilty go free or walk out of jail early. If you really want to make a difference, campaign to get the weak judges and
prosecutors out of their positions and replace
them with ones that believe in actually giving out meaningful punishment to criminals.

That would do far more to clean up crime in America than every gun law you could ever dream up.

Evidently the way to make money from rednecks this year is to own a gunshop and not a factory that makes those singing fish.

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/gun.sale...

It disgusts me to no end when I read this type of trashy utter nonsense. Like previously mentioned,it seems the author needs a refresher course in American History....and badly.

One's right to possess firearms does indeed assure us of the ultimate in 'checks and ballances' . Tyrany can be stopped in a republic such as ours with the propper protests and editorials and such ..... but not if we are rendered helpless by choking our gun rights. Because then we are at their mercy and they have nothing to fear.....our protests fall on uncaring ears.

And you are slamming the Bush administration??

"Interestingly, these twisted fantasies got one thing right. We have always faced the danger in this country of a government coming to power that would attempt to take away our constitutional rights. In fact, we are ending eight years of a government that had no respect for our Constitution and made a concerted assault on the rule of law.""

I laugh in your face , sir. You have this administration to thank for 7 years of saftey from the REAL psychos of this world. (we will see what your messiah can do for us in his upcomming term)

May God help us all.

The British did not have the determination that Russia or Germany had to control a population. And don't forget the ending to Gandhi's non-violent life.

Since we vote our government into and out of power, I am not exactly sure how you would need a gun to shoot a government that the majority had put into power. This is democracy. The only thing tyrannical are the gun owners with threats of violence. They don't really believe in democracy they believe in their own self-righteousness.

The second amendment in FACT says NOTHING about guns it refers to arms which in this case would be short for armaments. So, where do the "gun" owners draw the line. Can I own 120mm cannon. It is an armament.

Lastly, Gandhi defeated the British without any Guns at all. So what does that say about the need for a gun.

Is now a bad time to remind the audience that Obama's Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army friends have fired more shots in anger at the government than 99.999% of the 80,000,000 law abiding US gun owners combined?

"Fantasy gun battles aren’t the way we save democracy in the real world."

Tell that to the Framers of the Constitution. High-minded ideals aside, the authority of the government comes from both the will of the people at large and the application of force to protect them and itself.

However, the world isn't perfect and no amount of idealism would make it so. It's funny that you mention the current administration but neglect others. FDR did just as much to stifle constitutional protections during WWII.

"the pendulum swings back and we elect a constitutional law professor as president"

Yes, he is a "constitutional law professor", who just violated the Constitution by appointing Hilliary Clinton as secretary of state. Artical 1 section 6. "let us start of this administration with a blatent violation.
Yes, I believe he will uphold the Constitution...Yea, right!!!

"president to appoint Supreme Court justices who will protect all of our constitutional rights".
One thing people dont understand is that the Constitution is specific. The supreme court isnt supposed to "interpret" its supposed to "inforce", let us hope he appoints those that will do just that. If he does, then wheather you like it or not, the second amendment will not be infringed in any way, but, I get the feeling that as long as it is you and your "Sheeple friends" way, you will be fine.Just remember one thing while your bowing, "those that appese the alligator, are the last too get eaten"

Ah yes, more of McNally's Moronic Meanderings. There is help available for him, he just has to seek it out. His home town won't claim him, they are embarrased by him.

I think this writer is a hack. And he gives a new meaning to the word yellow journalist with this story. Its one thing to be a liberal, but its far worse when you make up facts and start name calling to support your liberal agenda.

Assault Weapons do some like something bad, so does Evil Black Rifle.

But I guess that was the point when the liberals made up that term? Can't ban something not scary unless you fool people into thinking its scary. So google Assault Weapons and see what you find out about them? If you don't want to do it because you don't think you have been fooled than stay a fool and don't learn anything. They will like you better that way.

Spoiler: Assault Weapons is a unreliable term used to describe how a gun looks and has nothing to do with the way it shoots.

If that same logic was used to describe a person it would be racism. Think about it.

As much as we would prefer all wars to be slap fests, that just is not going to happen. Somebody will pick up a stick then somebody else will pick up a rock and from there we all know where it goes. That is human nature. It is called self preservation. A God given Right to protect ourselves from those who would smite and or enslave us. There are those who will stand and defend that right and those who will not. We all owe our very freedom to those that do stand up. " For those that serve, Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know." Joel get your facts straight. Get your butt out there on the front lines. Go visit one of those border towns and have a hoot convincing those cartels that they should stop the killing and Drug smuggling into the United States. Help your Government elect Joel. Strike a Blow for Freedom.If they lay down their arms then we won't need to defend ourselves. Go get em Joel! You can doooo it!

thediplomat "The Obama adminstration will not make it illegal to buy or own a semi-automatic AK-47 or an AR-15."
umm then why dose he Call for permanently reinstating the assault weapons ban?
" I don’t see the government taking your guns away in anyone on this planet’s lifetime."
Thats the same thing that my friend from Australia said, and guess what... they did it.
When you ban firearms from people who obey the laws, all you do is empower the criminals. They do not care about the laws and are going to get what ever they want. Its clear what the second ment to founders, you need to a course that covers the American Revolution with a heavy emphasis on the Federalist Papers

As for the types of weapons to have and use, when the Constitution was written, the people had the same sort of weapons that the British Army (and other armies of Europe)had, IF they
were lucky enough to obtain these high quality firearms. The authors certainly intended that the people should own firearms that were particularly suited to military usage. First line battle rifles of the day.

There is NOTHING that even SUGGESTS that there was ever any intent to deny the people ownership of the best guns the military had to offer. The very idea that some guns should not be in civilian hands is FICTION. It has no basis in Constitutional law, only in the biases and prejudices of those who truly do not understand the basis of our rights.

"Assault rifles" are most certainly what the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would approve of for general use by the citizens of this country, if they could have seen it.

So far as I'm concerned, there is not one single GOOD law on the books that in any way, shape, or form, restricts the ownership of ANY kind of firearms for civilian usage. The only good gun laws are those that provide punishment for use of guns in an unlawful manner. Mere possession, or usage in a legal and safe manner, should never be denied to any free citizen, regardless of the type of gun. True machineguns included. The type of gun does NOT matter, it NEVER has. Only the INTENT of the user has ANY bearing on the situation, and despite the erroneous beliefs of some liberals who lack significant independent cognitive capacity, the type of gun you own doesn't have the slightest bearing on your mental status. If you give a machinegun to a law-abiding citizen, you STILL have a law-abiding citizen. But a criminal is still a criminal even if he's unarmed.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, say our government went so bad that it did come time to rise up against it in open revolt. Who would we be fighting? Honestly that's a tough question to answer. I doubt that any given politician would be disarming people at gunpoint. Employees of federal agencies would be just doing their jobs. It would be hard to define "the enemy" specifically. But it WOULD be anyone who shows up armed and demanding "hand them over". That would be when things started to get hairy.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". The Constitution and Bill of Rights is the HIGHEST law of the land. It can only be changed by a full Constitutional Convention. We shall have no reason to even worry about fighting our government so long as the Constitution and Bill of Rights are given full respect and honor. ALL of it, not just PARTS of it.

It is NOT by accident that the 2nd amendment is located second in the Bill of Rights. Its authors placed it where they believed it to belong, right after the First amendment, protecting freedom of speech and of religion. After that, they considered nothing to be more important than for the people to retain their capability to mount an effective defense against any attack upon them.

Some people will NEVER "get it". Not even if they'd been schooled by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and George Washington in person. I am afraid that you might be one of those people.

Our guns are the final protection against abuses of power. History is full of examples of countries that introduced total gun control and then immediately murdered their own citizens.

As a matter of policy, NO government, not even ours, can be trusted to be so kind and benevolent that it would be advisable to allow ourselves to be disarmed by it.

Don't believe me? History provides examples.

Germany. Russia. China. Rhodesia. (In just the past few years.) Cambodia. More than eighty MILLION citizens of these own countries, killed by their own governments, AFTER enacting total gun control laws.

Who said anything about taking away the 2nd amendment.

Why don't these AK-47 owners do something useful and kill terrorists?

Here's a clip showing someone that must be "way out there"
.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

We should all be able to bear arms, with the exception of criminals. But take our guns away and criminals will still find a way to get theirs. Associating Obama with taking our rights away is wrong. It is President Bush and his administration that is taking away our Constitutional rights.

Never met the guy. ;-)

All things are possible. Likely? No. Some would suggest that we are well on our way. I guess it all depends upon interpretations and definitions.

garyprimer,

I think the Unabomber also made that statement many times. Craziness keeps good company. Even if you owned an assault rifle, I would love to see you try and fight the government with their tanks, fighter planes, mortars, etc. I don’t see the government taking your guns away in anyone on this planet’s lifetime.

whoanellie,

What a solid response (sarcasm). So what part of my comment made me seem "out there"? I never stated that I believed in the digital converter box theory. That was obviously an extreme conspiracy theory. If you didn't get it, that was a shot at your far right belief that the new administration was going to take away your guns. I figured that if you believe that, the converter box theory was also something you would buy. Do me a favor, get educated. Far left wingers and far right wingers are idiots! You proved that when you posted that the article (which is far left) was written by someone "far out there" and then six sentences later you make a far right statement.

garyprimer-Are you suggesting that the USA is going to be a totalitarian govt?

One of the first steps for a totalitarian government is to disarm the population so it is easy to break down doors at night and whisk away anyone perceived as a threat, to make it easy to round up suspects and execute them in public without trial or defense, and to make opposition to the state difficult if not impossible.

Our government is NOT perfect, and never will be. There have been times in Amercian history when our country violated the rights of many citizens, ie: taking land from the Native Americans, slavery, child labor, demeaning women, imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WWII, blackballing alleged "Communists", etc etc.
The Constitution protects our rights, but we as citizens need to protect ourselves.
With that being said, I am anti-gun, but only because of the losers who kill others for sport or who don't take measures to keep kids safe. Assault weapons? Hhmm, sounds kinda like terrorism to me.
JMO

Just so you know, I don'think of the digital converter box that way! Never even heard of it being that!!! Obviously though you must have! Talk about way out there. And I do believe Obama is way out there with you.

whoanellie,

You started off chastising people that are "far out there" and then you make the statement, "Obama is not a person who will let us keep many of our freedoms including guns!". Sorry, but you to are "far out there" and do not represent normal people. You just happen to be far right. I bet you think that the digital coverter boxes are a way for the government to listen in on our conversations too. By the way, I am not coming to the aid of the reporter. I think he is just as big of a mornon as you do. He shouldn't even be writing for a small rag like the Gazette. I wouldn't even hire him to write a liberal blog.

Joel once again you are an idiot!!! You turn all these stupid inflammatory statements to sound like it is the normal people saying them. You know as well as I do that they are the far out there kind of people, but you use it to your usual liberal advantage. I grew up in a family that owned all kinds of guns. They were used for hunting and such. I even learned to use them. It IS our right to keep and bear arms as American citizens. If you don't like it move someplace else,( may I suggest Russia?) Obama is not a person who will let us keep many of our freedoms including guns! If you don't believe me,just keep watching! I don't know why the gazette keeps letting you write for them, you are no journalist! Gazette please spare us the asssinine comments from him and get rid of him!

Joel, you write for a column in Southern Wisconsin. Of course you are going to have idiot rednecks right you back with extreme passion on the subject of guns. Just be glad you didn't write the article for a town in Texas! The people running to the gun stores are idiots. The Obama adminstration will not make it illegal to buy or own a semi-automatic AK-47 or an AR-15. Personally I find these guns fun to take target practive with, but after you shoot one in person there is no denying that they are made to kill people. With that said, I don't agree with an outright ban mainly because I am a responsible citizen who wouldn't own one because "the government is out to get me". It would be just for the fun of shooting targets with it at the range.

Just typical overreaction from both sides. I believe that most gun owners are politically center. Joel, you write an inflammatory column and then decry peoples inflammatory responses, by writing another inflammatory column.

Joel how ironic. One of the most left-fringe wackos writing and complaining about some of the most right-fringe wackos.