Zimmerman Lawyer: I Support the Second Amendment, But…

 Mark O'Mara (right) (courtesy rollingout.com)

“I myself am a responsible gun owner,” Mark O’ Mara assures readers at cnn.com, below a photo montage of “the worst mass shootings in American history.” “I believe in the right to justified self-defense. [But] I also believe that reasonable restrictions to assure that only law-abiding citizens can purchase firearms better prevents over-restriction of our Second Amendment.” So by allowing reasonable restrictions on American gun rights gun owner prevent unreasonable restrictions like . . . New York’s ban on “assault weapons” and Colorado’s ban on “high-capacity magazines.” But wait! O’Mara’s not done waving the white flag . . .

Our Constitution is a resilient force, and our Bill of Rights has survived countless modifications and restrictions without the erosion of fundamental freedoms. Our Second Amendment right is no different: It can survive modification and restriction without the fear that it will vanish altogether.

Tell that to the residents of New Jersey, none of whom can satisfy the “justifiable need” standard imposed by the State on residents who aspire to exercise the “bear” part of “keep and bear arms.” Again, Mark O’Mara wants Americans to surrender their firearms freedom to maintain it- which is like paying an extortionist a bit of money to prevent him from taking a lot of money later. I guess O’Mara missed NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre’s “stand and fight speech.” How ironic is that?

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently pledged $50 million to address gun issues. In the face of such a concerted effort, the failure of gun rights advocates to allow any reasonable flexibility to our right to bear arms could mean that it will eventually buckle under the weight of thoughtful opposition propelled to action by the next series of tragic and, unfortunately, inevitable mass shootings.

Like hell it will. [h/t DrVino]

comments

  1. avatar Vhyrus says:

    You could have written an entire article on just that last quote. So much fail in one paragraph.

  2. avatar HJ says:

    Zim should have hired Andrew Branca, it seems.

  3. avatar ST says:

    Mark O’mara is a high profile defense attorney. It would seem most attorneys in the places of power DESPISE the 2nd Amendment. If he ever told the truth about the RKBA, it would be career suicide.Of course he’s going to say it’s subject to restriction, because guys who buck the “party line” don’t get the Good Jobs.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Just realize that lawyers are a major contributing factor to the current demise of our country. Every stupid law and government action that is opposite of common sense was all precipitated by lawyers.

      One of the few upsides to a SHTF episode will be lawyers getting critiqued.

    2. avatar MacBeth51 says:

      Most attorneys in high positions despise the Constitution, period. Most favor a strong central Government, with that Government granting those “right” as it sees fit. Much more orderly, you know

  4. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Allow me to translate lawyer-speak: “I have not been paid yet”.

  5. avatar Jake says:

    We are not gun rights advocates.

    We are human rights advocates.

    That the opposition wishes to so narrowly define us telling of their fear, which is justifiable.

    One guy with $50 million against millions with $25 would scare the crap out of me, too.

  6. avatar Charles says:

    So basically he supports HIS version of the 2nd amendment, not the true version. Sorry O’Mara, the 2nd amendment isn’t something you can just water down whenever you feel like it. I would truly hate to live in a world that didn’t have guns to defend yourself with or hunt or even target practice with.

  7. avatar Charles says:

    Just to clarify, NRA member fees are now at $35 and have been for at least 2 years now, so yea, 5 million x $35 you do the math 🙂

    1. avatar Ron says:

      It is $25.00 if your recruiter forfeits his $10.00 commission. I have signed up bunches of folks at $25.00

      1. avatar Charles says:

        If it is $25 then why the hell am I being charged $35?

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Because you don’t have a coupon. No, I’m not kidding.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        I got an NRA mailing today, the first so in a number of years. The one-year rate is indeed $35, but the flier had that marked down to $25.

        Hope that helps in some way.

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        The $25 being discussed is anti Bloomie fundraiser (not a membership drive). Launch at Annual Meeting in Indianapolis. His dirty $50m vs grassroots 2nd supporters Each with $25.

        Pretty good video.
        http://home.nra.org/home/video/bloombergs-millions/list/home-feature

  8. avatar PeterC says:

    “But…but…but.” Too damn many but-heads out there!

  9. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…and our Bill of Rights has survived countless modifications and restrictions without the erosion of fundamental freedoms. ”

    No.

    Last time I checked the count of modifications is up to 17 on the Bill of Rights. And one of those changes ‘unchanged’ an earlier change (prohibition).

    If he can’t count to 17 then how did he get through lawyer school?

    1. avatar Jeremy says:

      IMHO the countless changes are the thousands of laws that have been written and as yet not found unconstitutional.
      The Constitution should be the third rail of politics, touch it and die. As in spend countless years in a 6×9 cell. With a cellmate that thinks you have the cutest butt.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I would prefer that everyone who voted for a law, Senate and House, and the president who signed it, should be prohibited from running for elected office for life if any portion of that law is deemed unconstitutional.

        1. avatar Jeremy says:

          I like that idea.

    2. avatar MacBeth51 says:

      He counts things like NFA ’34 and GCA ’68

  10. avatar crashbbear says:

    There is no such thing as a reasonable restriction. Pursuit of happiness and all is why, even though we have free speech, a racist can’t go aroud dropping N-bombs to peoples face or directed at a person/ organization. They can say ” I hate so-and-so.” but they cant say ” You are a so-and-so.”

    My ownership of a firearm doesn’t deprive anyone their pusuit of happiness, no matter how much they don’t like it. Me sticking a gun in their face does. See the difference?

    We all know what the anti’s say to that. And let me give you my perspective: Tanks, Weaponized aircraft, explosive devices, and nukes aren’t ” ARMS”. They are armaments, but not arms. I want to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a Ma Duece the same way I’d buy a shotgun. Background check yes, registration no.

    The government shouldn’t get to decide what we need or what is adequate i.e. ammo caps, rate of fire, projectile composition, etc. But NO ONE needs grenades or stingers… yet. And anyone that says they do is more than willing to lose that debate with me if they so choose.

    1. avatar Jeremy says:

      Some restrictions are reasonable. For example, you should not be allowed to sell a gun that is not capable of with standing the chamber pressures of modern cartridges, unless it they are marked CLEARLY “Not intended for Modern Ammunition”, or were manufactured prior to say 1900,or intended for black powder.
      So if you want to make a plastic gun on your 3D printer that won’t handle a 9mm, fine, just don’t sell it. That to me would be reasonable.

      1. avatar crashbbear says:

        We’re talking Gov’t. restrictions.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Bullshat. I want some grenades, I bet they’re fun! Why should I not have them?

      1. avatar Jeremy says:

        You debate him, I’ll judge.

      2. avatar crashbbear says:

        If a gun or ammunition fails, the worst you’re looking at is loss of limb. If a grenade goes off prematurely or delayed, you be dead, son. And since we’re talking 2A stuff here, which is based on defensive not sporting purpose, there is no way to justify the use of explosive munitions. ” Yeah officer, he tried to break in, well, i think it’s a he, I can’t tell anymore, but he hit that claymore and Bob’s your uncle.” Think about a 99% chance of collateral damage. The saying doesn’t go ” Better to kill 6 and be carried out in a 12 gallon bucket.”

        I can’t see Bill Gates or Oprah taking out a APC full of home invading crackheads with an RPG.

        Fishing with det cord and a brick of semtex stink bait is doing it wrong. But hell, if that’s how you wanna play ball, let’s just go deer hunting with a man-portable rail gun or a 20MM rifle with H.E.A.T. rounds. Or a Milkor. Cause killing, processing, and cooking the meat in one pull of the trigger is just too easy.

      3. avatar Jeremy says:

        Crashbear, the second amendment is about us remaining a free people. If you read the Constitution, we are NOT supposed to have a standing Army. Instead, we are supposed to be a nation of riflemen such that even kim jong unintelligent would imagine he was thinking twice before trying anything. Its not about hunting or sports, but remaining a free people, a well regulated militia. Back then, most towns had an artillery battery with a canon or two.

      4. avatar MacBeth51 says:

        I give up. Why not?

        1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          I’m with you. If someone can afford the stinger missiles then why can’t they have them? It’s not like they are going to be shooting them off in the back yard range or anything so what’s the problem?

          Well, maybe if your backyard is big enough. But still…. what’s the problem in having them?

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          The really ironic thing about that “only the government should have bombs” schtuff is that without the Constitution, without YOUR dollars that it steals and calls “taxes,” they would not only not exist, but they wouldn’t have any bombs to play with anyway. The bombs and tanks and rockets were all bought with YOUR money, so they are “ours” by rights anyway, so the concept of forbidding an individual to own one is ludicrous.

          On another note, if we modify the 2A, I’d say lose the militia part, maybe specify that it’s an individual right, and forbid the GOVERNMENT to hold or use arms. They’re supposed to be “public servants,” let them do some damn serving for once!

    3. avatar Kyle says:

      “Arms” to me are the basic tools of war that a person can carry that do not destroy things but can kill, i.e. pistols, rifles, and shotguns, along with bow-and-arrow, knives, axes, swords, etc…grenades, RPGs, etc…would count as munitions, not arms. Vehicle-mounted machine guns (whether on a Humvee, a tank, a helicopter, a fighter plane, etc…) are not arms as one can’t carry those and they could be destructive.

  11. avatar Hannibal says:

    He may be an effective (self) defense attorney, But…

  12. avatar CGinChicago says:

    Nothing someone says the before the word but really counts

  13. avatar Dsve S says:

    An attorney who doesn’t belive in his client’s cause can be worse than no attorney

  14. avatar Michael says:

    To be fair, restrictions that make it harder for felons and the mentally ill to get guns are qualitatively different from those that ban purely cosmetic features because they’re scary-looking.

    1. avatar Jeremy says:

      The mentally ill should be receiving treatment, and as for felons, if they cannot be trusted wit ha gun, they should not be free where they might obtain one.
      Adequately punish them,reform is their decision. Give them some incentive. A few lashes with a horse whip for the first felony, castrate after the second, Death after the third. Oh, you want chemical castration? We will just strap a half pound of tannerite below em and do it that way.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        as for felons, if they cannot be trusted wit ha gun, they should not be free where they might obtain one

        I agree, Larry, that felons should never be free. All of them re-offend — every damn one.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Maybe we should consider passing such laws then, because so far all 22,000 gun control laws in America seem to only disadvantage the law abiding and sane. The others pay no attention and are not punished. But let’s repeal the useless ones first. For the children. Start with NFA, then GCA ’68, and on down the pike. Any new laws expire after 10 years, allowing for study of their costs and effects, can be repassed for another 10.

  15. avatar Patrick Downs says:

    “Reasonable restrictions”, “justifiable need” —both completely subjective terms subject to the whims of courts and politicians, as we’ve seen in places like DC, NJ, and Chicago. It find that unreasonable and unacceptable. 2nd Amendment in the traditional pro-gun meaning, for me. We have all the gun laws we need, and just need to enforce them.

    1. avatar Jeremy says:

      We have too many and need to repeal a few (hundred).

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        …need to repeal them ALL!

        “Shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean “may be infringed a little bit, For The Children™”

  16. avatar General Zod says:

    “Thoughtful opposition”? I’ve yet to see any. All I see are emotional appeals bolstered by lies and stereotyping.

  17. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Mr. O’Mara,
    We’re going to restrict your right to pursue happiness. Just a little bit. One can’t be too happy. You understand.

    Oh, and we’re going to restrict your ability to have children to only one. You don’t need more than that.

    Lastly, we’re going to restrict your breathing. Just a little. You don’t need to have too much oxygen. Just don’t exert yourself, and you’ll be fine.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Oh Tom… I like how you think. 🙂 Let’s expand that to anyone who wants, in any way, to control the lives of others… who think that there should be any so-called “reasonable” and “common sense” pre-crime prior restraints on anyone.

      All human beings have the SAME authority over their own lives, and the “right” to self defense. If they can’t be trusted not to harm others, they need to have a keeper or be dead – preferably at the hands of their intended victim or that person’s guardian.

      And to Mr. O’Mara and all his ilk I say: Why in the world would I care what you “want” or approve of in MY life? It’s none of your damned business.

  18. avatar cubby123 says:

    Are you talking about the mass shootings that happen in Chicago everyday? Oh that’s right only gangbangers should have guns cause they don’t give a rat’s a?s about the 2nd Amenment,and they believe like all the rest of these convoluted ignoramuses that you should restrict law abiders freedoms so scumbags have more victims to choose from. is that what you are talking about Mark?

  19. avatar Logan says:

    What a dumbass.
    That is all.

  20. avatar ReadMore says:

    O’Mara also argues that our other constitutionally guaranteed rights are likewise “reasonably restricted.” Yeah, the Bill of Rights is holding up great O’Mara. Even the NYT admits that the 1st and 4th amendments are in dire straits. I can’t take anyone seriously who has the audacity to pretend like all is well in the land of the NSA.

  21. avatar Jim at the NSA says:

    Once you pay the Dane, he never goes away.

  22. avatar Rick says:

    “”It can survive modification and restriction without the fear that it will vanish altogether.” = We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

  23. avatar Kyle says:

    O’Mara’s thinking on gun rights needing “reasonable restrictions” to prevent unreasonable restrictions I think is along the lines of saying you need reasonable government intervention in the economy to prevent things from getting so haywire that the people decide to elect into place hardcore socialists. However, with gun rights, it doesn’t work out like this (and even with economics, it depends). With guns, the restrictions being put forth are not “reasonable at all.” O’Mara makes some points I wholeheartedly disagree with:

    Each amendment in the Bill of Rights has spawned a legacy of case law that interprets, defines, refines and restricts our basic freedoms based on the values and needs of the people at the time.

    Here are some examples:

    The First Amendment — our freedom of speech, of expression, of assembly — is our most fundamental right, but even it is not unrestricted. No matter how strongly we feel, our words cannot be used to incite violence. They cannot be used to further terrorism. We cannot incite panic (shouting “fire” in a crowded theater). We are allowed our freedom of religion, yet we cannot force those religious beliefs on others.

    Freedom of speech is not our most fundamental right. Self-defense is our most fundamental right. In a state of nature, nobody cares one iota about your right to free speech, assembly, etc…they do care however if you will blow their head off if they try to harm you or your family. Self-defense is the right that underwrites all the other rights. It is the most fundamental and important. And that includes self-defense against a tyrannical government as well.

    Regarding free speech restrictions, if we regulated speech the way the gun control proponents seek to regulate guns, then we would have cries for something like a national Hate Speech Ban, with “hate speech” being defined by the authors of such legislation however they please. Maybe they would seek to outlaw all political speech, and only speech that the government “approves of” would remain legal, just as the gun control proponents want to outlaw all “military guns” and only guns that the “government approves of” will be legal. Such legislation undermines the whole point of the amendment in the first place.

    And case law is not supposed to restrict our rights based on the values and needs of the people at the time. A majority of the population once supported slavery. So since that was within people’s values at the time, that made it okay? Please. As for needs, rights are not dependent on needs. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the government from infringing on our rights. And also ourselves. It is there to protect the majority from the elite minority and the minority from the majority.

    The Constitution is not written in stone. It evolves as our society evolves. The Second Amendment is more complicated, however, because it deals with issues larger than freedom and oppression; it deals with life and death.

    Certain parts of it are, in fact, written in stone, because certain rights are timeless and fundamental and are not supposed to change as society “evolves.” Free speech, right to arms, right to privacy (which the Constitution doesn’t explicitly protect), right against unreasonable search and seizure, etc…all are timeless and fundamental rights.

    Buried in the Second Amendment is the right to self-defense, the very mechanism that allowed our Founding Fathers to win freedom from tyranny. Some argue it is the right that guarantees all other rights. Our forefathers wanted us to be able to protect ourselves against outside threats, and even from internal tyranny. They may have even intended us to be able to protect ourselves from each other.

    They very much intended us to be able to protect ourselves from one another. The individual right of self-defense is the core foundation for the intellectual development of the right of nations to defend themselves in the history of international relations and the right of a people to resist a tyrannical state. But the right was so widely known at the time, and considered so blatantly obvious, that it wasn’t thought that the right to self-defense would need to be written explicitly. It’s implicit in the wording “the right to keep and bear arms.” What the hell else would the right to keep and bear arms be protected for?

    It is a stretch to argue they intended guns to be so available, in such strength, that children, high-school populations and co-workers and law enforcement could be so easily slaughtered.

    No it isn’t. In fact, it’s more the opposite: that some believe the Founders and the philosophers on the subject throughout history may have had too much trust in the population possessing arms. Also, what is meant by “strength?” Guns today are no more powerful than they were back in the 19th century. The current gun technology available to civilians is well-over one-hundred years old now. What is a stretch is to argue that the Founders ever intended for all of the restrictive gun control laws that gun control proponents push for.

    Our Constitution is a resilient force, and our Bill of Rights has survived countless modifications and restrictions without the erosion of fundamental freedoms. Our Second Amendment right is no different: It can survive modification and restriction without the fear that it will vanish altogether.

    Apply this statement to the First Amendment and see how good it sounds.

    Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently pledged $50 million to address gun issues. In the face of such a concerted effort, the failure of gun rights advocates to allow any reasonable flexibility to our right to bear arms could mean that it will eventually buckle under the weight of thoughtful opposition propelled to action by the next series of tragic and, unfortunately, inevitable mass shootings.

    Michael Bloomberg is a man hellbent on denying people their right to keep and bear arms and tries repeatedly to mislead people on the subject, whether through ignorance or blatant lying. One look at New York City’s gun laws under him is all the example one needs. And let’s get two things straight here:

    1) Gun rights proponents do not fail to allow any “reasonable flexibility” to our right to keep and bear arms. All of the so-called “reasonable proposals” are nothing of the sort. They only seem reasonable to the ignorant and uninformed, who may mean well, and whom the gun control proponents exploit.

    2) The gun control proponents are not any “thoughtful opposition.” Truly thoughtful opposition on these gun control proposals quickly turns to being pro-gun rights because they realize the fallacy of their ways when they have the facts explained to them.

  24. avatar Excedrine says:

    “I support the Second Amendment, but..”

    But nothing. I also find it curious that literally no other amendment gets this kind of treatment from anybody, and if anybody seriously tried it at all, all Hell would break loose and that poor sap would be utterly crushed under the condemnation of society as a whole.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I’ve heard a lot of “I support the first amendment, but…” in my day. Flag burning, things considered profane, etc.

  25. avatar John in Ohio says:

    I’m really not surprised. He made a comment or two in the media right after the Zimmerman trial that demonstrated he was of the “but” crowd. However, I didn’t know that he was this far off.

    So many seem to misunderstand the first part, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. If we desire a free state then a well regulated (trained, access to firearms, etc) is necessary. Furthermore, because it is necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s very simple. Either they just don’t believe it or they believe it and consciously want to usurp it.

    I know what it takes to maintain a free state. It says so right there in the “manual”. It is so very simple that hearing the “but” crowd wrangle with the truth is sometimes maddening.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “the “but” crowd”

      Also known as “‘but’ heads?”

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Lol. Yep, aka ass-hats.

      2. avatar Rick says:

        I refer to them as “Second Amendment Butt-Monkeys.”

  26. avatar Nighthawk says:

    The “reasonable restriction” already exists: felons can’t legally own any firearm. Why do these clowns act like that isn’t already a law on the books all over the country? Felons can’t do this legally, but felons do it anyway cause they’re criminals.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Because it’s not about reasonable. Allow one step across the line of shall not be infringed and there’s no long term argument against most any other so-called reasonable restriction. In crafting the Second Amendment, they were very wise; something is necessary for Liberty therefore government cannot infringe upon it. Allow one infringement today, however reasonable it seems at the time, and you allow practically all over time. The only limit is how foolish the American people are at the time and how cleverly worded the proposal is.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        Indeed, John. Just one little additional point…

        Think of all the insane things that are now called “felonies.” Think of all the “domestic” spats and substance uses that are now turned into excuses to disarm EVERYONE connected with it.

        As far as I’m concerned, the firearms of the aggressor automatically belong to the person who defends him/herself successfully. Now, that’s “reasonable.”

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          In my opinion, the line is simple. Only when an adult is in legitimate, lawful custody should they possibly be deprived the use of arms. That means under legitimate arrest or actually detained, in jail or prison, as a patient in a mental hospital or other secured health facility after it has been determined that the individual is not currently competent, or when they are a criminal defendant in the courtroom during their actual trial. If they are on their own, out and about then they are responsible for their own individual safety and ought not be debarred the use of arms. That includes former felons and those on probation/parole too.

          If someone were to come along and make a cute comment that what I’ve listed are infringements, I’d answer that I would rather even those not be permissible if the choice is between such a situation and what we have now. I can live with shall not be infringed just fine. I would rather be free than trade it for perceived “safety”.

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          The problem, John, is that nobody has any legitimate authority to make those determinations for everyone. Just whom do you suppose decides who is “in legitimate, lawful custody…?” Who makes those “laws?” Who decides all those things you accept as justification for restrictions?

          I’m sure that you are aware of the fact that governments frequently use “mental health” as a way to control their subjects… Remember the soviets? They had a ball with that one.

          I’d love to live in a completely safe environment, but I know that is not an option. But in fact, the more people who go armed the closer we get to that ideal.

          The best way to prevent aggression, real crime, regardless of the persons or weapons involved, is to make the choice for aggression both very inconvenient and painful… to the aggressor. Armed self defense, so far at least, is one of the best ways to make that happen.

          You said: “I can live with shall not be infringed just fine. I would rather be free than trade it for perceived “safety”.

          The creation of all those prohibited persons – YOUR list here – is most certainly a part of that trade. Ask yourself “who decides all those things” seriously… Who has legitimate authority to deprive any of them of the means for effective self defense?

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          It’s not MY list, MamaLiberty. It’s the most basic list I could get the patriot folks whom I spent a lot of time with to agree on.There’s nothing you’ve written so far that I haven’t spent over thirty years thinking about. Hopefully, your comments will get some who haven’t thought about it much to think.

          However, you raise an interesting point. What are your thoughts on those in prison keeping and bearing firearms?

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “those in prison keeping and bearing firearms?”

          RED HERRING STRAWMAN!

        5. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          John, what honest purpose does “prison” serve for individuals? If someone robbed your house, you would want your stuff back, but would you really want to put the thief into a cage and force all of your neighbors to pay for his shelter, food, clothing, medical care, etc? What purpose does that actually serve to make your life whole?

          Prisons are the invention and tools of the non-voluntary government, and serve only the “ruler’s” purposes. The general population has been intimidated into compliance, and forbidden to actually defend their property rationally, so the theif has little to fear from most people. But if a potential theif KNEW he stood a good chance of being shot for his aggression, I suspect there would be far fewer of them.

          And just think of all the completely non-violent, non aggressive people who are put into these prisons. (No victim – no crime.) And the primary responsibility for preventing or dealing with that crime is the intended victim and their families/guardians. Arbitration, compensation, voluntary community solutions for habitual aggressors who don’t get shot for their crimes. There are many possible alternatives to the government “courts” and prisons.

          So no, those in “prison” can’t be armed… they shouldn’t be in prison. If those people are competent (one way or another) to walk the streets, however, they have the same “right” to defend themselves as anyone else. If they abuse that and aggress against someone, then they must face the possibility of being shot and killed, just as with any other aggressor.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          BTW: In case it wasn’t clear in my initial post:

          If someone were to come along and make a cute comment that what I’ve listed are infringements, I’d answer that I would rather even those not be permissible if the choice is between such a situation and what we have now.

          I was stating that I’d have no problem with zero restrictions rather than what we have now. 🙂

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          RED HERRING STRAWMAN!

          SHHH… Hush, you. 😀 😀 😀 😉

  27. avatar diverwcw says:

    Every time Feinstein or Bloomberg open their mouth, I send the NRA a donation. It might not be a lot but over time, it all adds up. I encourage all gun owners to join a pro gun group and send an occasional donation.

  28. avatar dan says:

    There is NO…. but… in our Constitution…there is….SHALL NOT INFRINGE…an educated person as yourself should know such a meaning…….imho

  29. avatar dan says:

    and one more thing…the BILL OF RIGHTS…..are written in STONE…they can NOT be changed ,altered or replaced ,given away and /or be taken by anyone…..as in UNALIENABLE RIGHTS…endowed by our Creator…..so , set in stone is absolutely what they are…..

  30. avatar Wow says:

    Why don’t we just simply not allow convicted felons that are still a danger to society out of prison…and if we’re going to let them out of prison let it only be if they are zero threat to society…then we law abiding folk don’t have to have everything “child proofed” to prevent criminals from getting stuff…we can all own whatever we want and do whatever we wanted legally and easily… But because we let violent and dangerous criminals out of prisons for whatever reason, we all have to list with all sharp objects out or reach so to speak…

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Good thoughts.

      If government were stopped from infringing on the individual right to keep and bear arms, the need for imprisonment might decrease and the herd of violent criminals might be significantly culled. Of course, even if all of the violent criminals remained in prison, the need for the RKBA would remain as there are still governments and wild animals.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        The USA has a higher percentage of its population in prison than any other country on the planet. Get rid of all of the bad laws against harmless but disapproved behavior, and the number of “violent felons” would fall below the noise level. There really are not very many bad people! The problem is when they get into positions of power. Abolish the government! 😉

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          As is often the case, I agree with you. 🙂

  31. avatar GSP says:

    More things being illegal means more grist for the plea bargain mill which means more work for him.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email