Connecticut Sends Letter to Unregistered Gun Owners to Surrender Firearms

By: Joshua Cook
85

 

Connecticut’s knee-jerk reaction to “assault weapons” continues with a shocking letter sent to residents who applied for an assault weapon certification and large capacity magazine declaration. Basically the state squashes the 2nd Amendment.


The letters tell guns and ammunition owners to break them, sell them, keep them in a different state or to turn them over to law enforcement.

According to The Day Connecticut, more than 200 people who tried to register their assault-style guns or declare ownership of high-capacity magazines but missed the Jan. 1 deadline are getting letters from the state police.

The letters are not a warning but a notification that their application was rejected, according to state police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance.

“It just gives them their options,” he said. “Right now we’re just trying to help everyone abide by the law. There’s nothing more than that.”

The letters, signed by Lt. Eric Cooke, commander of the special licensing and firearms unit, are being sent out even as the task of sifting through the thousands of applications and declarations continues.

According to estimates, only about 15 percent of rifles owned by Connecticut citizens were registered by last year. The Courant reported, “No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.”

Gun owners in Connecticut continue to practice civil disobedience. They refused to comply with a law they consider to be a violation of their 2nd Amendment rights.

conn-letter-

The following two tabs change content below.

Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook is a writer and a political activist. His work has appeared on DrudgeReport, InfoWars, Reason.com, WND.com, Breitbart.com, DailyCaller and FreedomOutPost.com. If you have any tips please email him at [email protected]
Support the Truth In Media Project


"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • God’s child

    We stand with you Ct. SC checking in.

  • Seth Alu

    Cold dead hands… NC

  • skeeter

    Sorry, but The Constitution overrides any of your unconstitutional laws that these nazi politicians pass.

    • Tony Baker

      In the end, this law probably will not hold up but it is going to take a lot of time and a lot of money for someone to appeal this to the US Supreme Court. In the mean time, then what?

    • Tony Baker
    • ilovelindzy

      Just for future reference.. Germany had super SUPER tight gun laws (imposed by themselves and the allies) after WW1… so in reality the Nazis LOOSENED gun laws (made them more available to more people, minus jewish folks of course). Maybe substitute another ideology for it when speaking about firearms next time.

      But yes, I’m sure we’ll be hearing about this in the courts shortly.

  • Tony Baker

    This is what happens when you give an inch and several years later they are taking a mile! GET RID OF LIBERALS AMERICA OR BECOME DETROIT!

  • Tony Baker
  • Nunaya Dambizness

    Good thing I don’t live in Connecticut. My response letter would be: “Dear State of Connecticut, F**K YOU very much! From my cold, dead hands…”

    • denru

      I would like to send them the old classic message sent during the Battle of the Bulge” “NUTS!”

  • Leo

    Come and get them!

  • LoneWiseMan

    What a ridiculous embarrassment for the “Constitution State.”

  • No RNC

    All that let the CT creeps get away w/ that Sandy Hook false flag should be ashamed. They have succeeded in bamboozling the sheep into complying w/ the tyrants!

    • james

      i agree….how do these people fall for false flags and the media and officials arent held accountable for them?

  • Doug Sanders

    Would be a government takeover if this happened in Wyoming can tell you that much.

  • Lissa

    Hold up or not, the state just lost a major battle of wills. Just like Obama and the Syria situation and now with Russia, the bark is louder than the bite. Makes threat, or law and then can’t enforce it. Bet that law make a a lot of people feel safer, not.

    • LEL

      Ain’t nothin lost yet on either side. The next move in this game of chicken will be made by CT’s LSFU.

  • Phlat phoot

    I guess I would like to see a couple officers killed in action trying to enforce this unconstitutional law. Then we can all gawk and squabble about reality…

    • denru

      Sadly, whether I like that idea or not, the CT voters don’t or won’t get them out, this may HAVE to happen.

      • LEL

        Why not lawyer-up a test case and take the issue all the way to the supreme court? Otherwise team-up with sheet for brains Phlat phoot and take out a few cops.

    • LEL

      You guess you’d like to see a couple officers killed in action trying to enforce this unconstitutional law !??? Well that’s just a great f’king brain fart you idiot. Get off your brain dead azz and work to replace the law makers who use the “sworn to uphold the law” officers to enforce their unconstitutional law. Otherwise grab your own gun and lead the way.

  • denru

    In the immortal words of Brigadier General McAuliffe: “NUTS!”

    • Frank Brady

      Balls, Nuts was PC of the day B A L L S !!!!

  • Charleston Voice

    Patriot Activist Makes His Own List: The Home Addresses of CT Legislators Who Voted in Favor of Gun Control

    http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2014/03/patriot-activist-makes-his-own-list.html

    Connecticut motto the “Constitution State”? That’d be laughable except it’s tragic.

    • anarchobuddy

      I like your site.

    • 7LibertyForAll

      And the tagline on Massachusetts license plates says “The Spirit of America.” I about vomited every time I looked at them. They’re the spirit of a dead Amerika. Who are these jerkwads who participate in all the lies and corruption?

  • John Davis

    I would like to see the officers start first. Can you imagine the swat team without all that gear?

  • Jarod725

    It would speak volumes if all 50,000+ practitioners of civil disobedience were to show up at the state capital – with their firearms – to voice their disapproval of this unconstitutional law. If there were such a show and all involved were committed to keeping a cool head, I suspect that no shot would have to be fired, no punches thrown, and really no need for a word to be spoken. The display in and of itself would send a powerful message that such blatant attempts to steal away personal liberty will not be tolerated. The sad fact is that we need to be as adamant that lost liberties be returned to the people as we are over the threat of further losing our freedom (whether it be 2A related or something else entirely). I think many believe we are at a tipping point when in reality we’ve already gone a good stretch down the slippery slope.

  • KAS

    A Letter is just a piece of paper.

  • Francis Vetter

    Regular Mail? lol, fu gerk offs.

  • Francis Vetter

    THis is what libs get you!! Con, you deserve what you get! NY is no different!

    • anarchobuddy

      I don’t know if I would say they “deserve” what they get. The individuals who elected those politicians based on their beliefs about guns probably welcome these draconian measures. The individuals who received the letters, I assume, did not support such politicians, so it’s hard to see how they deserve this.

  • Maria S. Weaver

    2nd Amendment rules over an Act…

  • Bob

    Other option is to through the Politicians out on their Asses, While you still have the power to do so!!!

  • RC

    Media still erroneously calling them “assault weapons.”
    *smh*
    If they continue to do that, the people will start to forget the true definition of a “semi-auto” rifle

    • FriendofThom

      Right… they need to focus on the high capacity magazines, not the gun.

  • Barry Chase

    I vaguely remember some paranoid people whining about so and so are coming for your guns. What a joke we said. LOL.

    The truth isn’t so funny now.

  • coach_rick_vice

    time for an Apache resistance

  • Zionistout

    Bad Goys Bad goys
    what ya gonna what what ya gonna do
    when the Jews come to take your guns from yooouuu

    • WW2 Vet-son

      Sounds more like what the NAZIs did to the Jews.

      • Zionistout

        If I had a bunch of communist Jew agitators running around my country causing violence and making trouble yeah I would take their guns away.

        • LEL

          You are a pathetic little man.

    • QuintessentialAhole

      What am I gonna do? I’m gonna make the Jews lunch. Hot lead and pastrami on rye all around.

  • Sven

    Funny is it not when cops went on TV saying. Oh No we would never take / confiscate legally held guns. Some out there wanted to believe. Well cops will take your guns based on the idiotic offering from this sheriff. ” because we were told to”.

    • Mr.Mike

      The trick was when they said Legally held guns. Now they went and made these guns illegal (with out state permission through registration). Thus they now have the right (in their eyes) to confiscate these now illegal guns. Then of course they will say do to resistance from the now illegal gun owners that they need to confiscate the legal guns (that they know you have because they are now registered) for yours and their protection.

    • LEL

      Let’s not confuse “cops” with the political powers who dictate to them.

  • Flypaper

    We are no longer ruled by law, but rather by ignorant perceptions.

  • http://conwaythecontaminationist.blogspot.com/ Conway193

    Pigs – every time one is shot, and then maimed or killed – I laugh like a jackal.

    • LEL

      You may well be a jackal.

      • http://conwaythecontaminationist.blogspot.com/ Conway193

        I consider that value judgement a compliment.

    • Derek Woods

      I bet you live in a hut with straw on the floor and have an arsenal of weapons just in case someone is going to make you do something like work pay your taxes and act like normal folk but in your case it would be hard because you are simple and every time you see a gun you get an erection. I Hope the LAWMEN come come calling one day JETHRO.

      • http://conwaythecontaminationist.blogspot.com/ Conway193

        I bet that you are a JACKASS.

  • Superdavidcon

    Molan Lieb and others like him are the “Un-American” ones in this issue. We are a gov’t by the people, of the people and for the people. However, this thinking has been hijacked by those who have a NWO agenda. It IS American to question and go about changing questionable legislation through civil disobedience especially when said legislation goes against the Constitution and The Bill of Rights as written and intended. Especially, when said legislation is being passed by those in public office that are going against the will of the people in favor of the NWO agenda. Do not let the mass media hijack the definition of what it means in terms of civil responsibility in standing up for our rights as Americans. The media is trying to switch the thought of the masses through the news and making it sound like if you are not complying that that in itself is “Un-American” as Molan Lieb put it. Our domestic enemies are showing their faces in a rapid-fire session lately. Unfortunately, it is many of those that are in public office who are trying to pass and enforce such incomprehensible laws that go against our rights to begin with.

  • Harry Rainey Jr.

    IS THERE A JAMA ‘AT UL-FUQARA TERRORIST TRAINING CAMP NEAR YOU..??
    Here is a list of 30 Locations Inside the United States…
    1. Marion, Alabama; 2. Baladullah, California; 3. Oak Hill, California; 4. Squaw Valley, California; 5. Tulare County, California; 6. Buena Vista, Colorado; 7. Tallahassee, Florida;8. Commerce, Georgia; 9. Jessup, Georgia; 10. Springfield, Massachusetts; 11. Hagerstown, Maryland; 12. Hyattsville, Maryland; 13. Coldwater, Michigan; 14. Binghamton, New York; 15. Deposit, New York;16. Hancock, New York (National Headquarters); 17. Talihina, Oklahoma; 18. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 19. Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania; 20. York, South Carolina; 21 Dover, Tennesee; 22. Houston, Texas;23. Waco, Texas; 24. Fairfax, Virginia; 25. Falls Church, Virginia; 26. Meherrin, Virginia; 27. Red House, Virginia; 28. Roanoke, Virginia; 29. Bethany, West Virginia; 30. Onalaska, Washington.
    And there is probably at least one in CT no doubt. If there is, will the same attention be given to Muslims that is being given to non-Muslims or will they be exempt?

    • FriendofThom

      Did the FBI Director appointed by Bush know about these? Is he a traitor?

  • FriendofThom

    Nonsense begets nonsense. Not accepting late applications is nonsense, but so are gun nuts who spew the nonsense that they need assault weapons to defend themselves, when they really just WANT them so they can fantasize about being Rambo or Dirty Harry with an AR-15, and/or being part of an uprising against the government. A shotgun is the best weapon for home defense because it doesn’t require careful aiming, backed up by a handgun for those paranoid about a large gang of intruders that won’t retreat when several have been dropped by the shotgun.

    • Brian Herr

      The 2nd Amendment is more that self-defense in the home. It is about the public being able to protect against foreign invasion. It’s about protecting against an oppressive government. It’s about securing liberties. It’s about the security of a free state.
      AR-15 vs Shotgun vs handgun is not even in the discussion regarding 2nd Amendment rights.
      And no, it has nothing to do with Rambo or Dirty Harry. I’m so glad you’ve gotten your biased views from people like Dianne Feinstein and Piers Morgan.

      • FriendofThom

        As long as we have 450,000- 550,000 active duty troops, and another 450,000+ in the Guard and Reserve, plus a massive arsenal of steal fighters, bombers, drones, nukes, etc., there is no real threat of a foreign invasion. Individuals with AR-15s would be no match for the firepower of the military, but If the federal government becomes so oppressive that an armed revolt is warranted, many Guard units will revolt too, and provide their arsenals to the people.. so they don’t really need AR-15s in their homes.

        • Brian Herr

          That would be your opinion. And you are entitled to it. As flawed and without factual measure that it may be.
          Our government and DOD is purposely spewing propaganda into the military, both active duty and the reserves (which includes the guard), that seeks to desensitize the military to the idea that people should have firearms.
          I know. I had officers in the command staff of my own Air National Guard unit that now spew that individuals should not be armed. You think that the Guard would back the people?
          You must not be aware of the intimate ties between all National Guard and Reserve units and the Federal government. You must not be aware that above the Lt. General of the Air National Guard (a federal position, not a state position, btw) is the Active Duty Air Force Command staff.
          You must not be aware of the indoctrination at Ft. Leonardwood in Missouri about conservative Christians, “liberty lovers” and those who oppose the current administration are potential domestic terrorists.
          Yet no one seems to recall that one of Obama’s inital starters that helped launch him into politics was Bill Ayers, a KNOWN domestic terrorist…
          Go down the path you are heading Friend, and you will have no freedoms left but what are allowed by the government.

          • FriendofThom

            I watch most of O’Reilly and Sean Hannity almost every night, and I’ve never heard them mention anything about how the DOD “..seeks to desensitize the military to the idea that people should have firearms.” What about people who like to hunt? Would they be allowed to rent guns for hunting? HAHAHA!

          • Forefathers

            Our forefathers added that amendment as #2 for a good reason. Apparently you libs need to remember how many died in the American Revolution vs. these rare shootings via the mentally ill.

          • FriendofThom

            When our forefathers added the 2nd amendment, guns were muskets capable of one shot a minute. I think the majority of them would shudder in horror at the ease with which criminals and the mentally ill can buy weapons capable of firing 100 rounds in a minute or so today.

          • Brian Herr

            That’s almost verbatim something Piers Morgan said…
            Look, the reality was the founding fathers wanted the civilian force to have comparable technology in their firearms as what the government had.
            Keep in mind that King George had demanded that they give up their muskets. And Muskets were STATE OF THE ART at the time.
            And there were multi-shot firearms then. Even Lewis and Clark used a repeating air rifle, called the Girandoni Air Rifle capable of shooting up to 30 rounds before you had to pump it up again.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

            You’re probably right. They would shudder. And then, they would get themselves a semiautomatic rifle and handgun.
            Heck, they might even pay the money for a NFA permit in order to own a fully auto like a M240B.

            It never fails that those who want gun control don’t even understand what they’re talking about.

          • FriendofThom

            So you think “the civilian force” should be able to buy machine guns, RPGs, mortars, shoulder-fired missiles, etc. without restrictions. Do you really think that will ever be the law of the land?? If you do, all I can say is HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHA!

          • tdk

            @FriendofThom: “No”, as per SCOTUS, the 2nd doesn’t apply to the types of weapons you mentioned. SCOTUS has ruled (Heller, McDonald, Miller) that the 2nd applies to weapons “in common use” by the military. With respect to the AR, no other weapon is MORE COMMONLY used. You may not agree with it, but it is the law of the land.

          • FriendofThom

            I know what the SCOTUS opinion is… I’m talking about what gun nuts think the law should be. Machine guns are in common use by the military, and every regular infantry platoon has anti-armor gunners…meaning TOW missiles and grenade launcher.

          • Brian Herr

            It’s funny you mention that. I didn’t say those things. I simply stated what the viewpoints of the founding fathers were.
            If you can’t support your argument, you falsify the other’s.

            For your information, civilians can buy many of these things. But they have to go through intense background checks, pay heavy fees, etc.

            Do I think everyone should own firearms? No. And I never said that. Do I believe everyone should be allowed to buy machine guns, RPGs, mortars, shoulder-fired missiles, etc? I think that people who are responsible, have had the proper training, and are willing to submit themselves to the same monitoring as the military are probably more responsible and trustworthy with those items than many in the military.

            When I was in the Air Force, I had additional training on fully automatic weapons. I am very familiar with the M60 (The weapon Rambo used btw), M240B and M249. I would say I’m qualified to speak about this.

            Here’s an example. When I was in the military, there were men who got their rocks off when they shot fully auto machine guns. Should those people be allowed to own one as a civilian? I’d be skeptical. They’re not mature enough.

            However, I do know several people who own M249′s, M240B and even AK-47s. And these people are very responsible. In fact, they exert more safety in the handling and use of those weapons than many in the military.

            The view that the military is the only entity qualified to operate such weapons is only espoused by those who’ve never used them.

          • Truth Hammer

            Go on then, fakefather, post the numbers for Americans killed fighting in the Revolutionary War. Dazzle us all with your knowledge.

          • Brian Herr

            As a veteran of the military, I can vouch for the military trying to portray citizens who assert their rights as extremists.

          • FriendofThom

            BS! Unless you think members of the military have the right to undermine the authority of the Commander-in-Chief by spewing BS about him being an illegal President… a Marxist who is arming terrorists, etc.

          • Brian Herr

            Wow. It is the epitome of arrogance to claim that someone’s personal experience and knowledge of a situation is BS simply because you don’t believe them. I highly recommend more background research for you and some history lessons. Who armed Saddam? The US. Who trained the Taliban? The US. We had our reasons, yes. But to ignore the facts is just that, ignorance.
            I served in the US Air Force for 6 years. I have military friends serving all over the world who would back me up.
            Here’s and example:
            The National Guard of Ohio just conducted training against “Right Wing Extremists.”
            I would like to know how many so called “right wing extremists” have actually launched an attack that justified the guard training to have a counter attack.
            However, Bill Ayers, one of Obama’s career starters, actually conducted an attack.
            How about the wack job in Colorado, James Holmes? Was he a right wing extremist? No, he was actually a democrat.
            Why aren’t National Guard units training for attacks from either side? Why single out a fictitious group in order label those who happen to disagree with the current administration?
            Why did Janet Napolitano, as head of the DHS, release a report that listed former veterans with conservative views, desire for smaller gov’t, etc as potential domestic terror threats though she didn’t have a shred of evidence to support it?

          • FriendofThom

            There are many rightwing nuts spewing idiotic BS about President Obama being an illegal President, a Muslim, a communist, a terrorist, trying to destroy the country and/or planning to declare martial law and make himself dictator for life. It is reasonable to assume that some of these turd-brained idiots are a threat to commit some kind of violence/ terrorism.

          • Brian Herr

            Please read Obama’s own words in Dreams of my Father.
            He’s an anti-colonialist and wants to diminish US’s role in the world. While I agree that we should withdraw from many venues and activities, I disagree about how to do it. It’s not that he wants to destroy the US as much as he wants to cripple it. Every action he’s taken/originated has a long term negative impact on the strength of our Union.
            Name 1 thing that Obama has done that strengthens our country’s economic position.
            I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but Obama said in his own words that if he had to side with Christians or Muslims, he would stand with the muslims. If you don’t believe me, read it yourself.
            As far as legal vs illegal president. The original intent of “naturalized citizen” meant that both parents were citizens of the US. Obama and his colleagues have worked through legal education and legal reviews to change the meaning over time.

            So, are you suggesting that when people question a President’s motive, that means they are a threat? If so, why weren’t liberals labeled as extremists when they ranted on Bush or spewed lies against Romney, Ron Paul, John McCain?

          • FriendofThom

            You continue to spew nonsense. Obama wants to “cripple it( the USA)” ? BS. Cripple it with a pentagon budget that is more than Russia, China, Britain, and a few more countries combined? How can you spew such nonsense?
            One thin Obama has done that strengthens our economy? He steered us out of Bush’s Wall St collapse recession that threatened to turn into another depression, and we’ve had economic growth ever since.
            Obama didn’t say that in a choice between siding with Christians or Muslims, he’s side with Muslims. Are you misinformed or lying? He said that if the political winds shifted in an ugly direction, he’d side with the Muslims, meaning that if there were moves to deny law-abiding American Muslims their Constitutional rights, he would defend those rights.
            Obama and his colleagues did not brainwash members of the Supreme Court, and they rejected challenges to Obama’s qualifications to be President, even before he took office.
            I don’t believe there were the kind and volume of overt and thinly veiled threats of violence against Bush or others as there are against Obama.

          • Brian Herr

            When FDR created the “NEW DEAL” the proponents claimed that the government’s involvement rescued the country. Then his own economic advisers came out and stated that the economy would have stabilized without the gov’t and that the gov’t’s involvement really did very little if any to truly change it.

            In the case of our current economy, we’ve raised the debt ceiling 2x. That weakens our national economy, not strengthens it. The gov’t didn’t add producing jobs. The gov’t added gov’t jobs, which only further drains the country. The gov’t didn’t add value to products. The gov’t provided bailouts when allowing those companies to restructure would have resulted in more efficient businesses and trimmed waste. The gov’t borrowed against our children’s future tax revenues, but there isn’t a plan in place to address how and when we will pay it down.

            China and Japan together own over 40% of our nation’s debt. Increasing it, which devalues the $, increases inflation, etc. doesn’t strengthen our country.
            Obama is just a repeat of the same bureaucratic black hole that has continued to get our country in this mess.

            I’m sorry, but the action which you claim as strength is indeed weakness. It’s a very short-sided and failed view of macro economics. I love your reference to Bush’s Wall St collapse. What amazes me is that Obama supporters paint it this way.

            Did you know that Bush fought early on in his presidency to introduce oversight to the housing bubble? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were results of the Clinton administration. The lack of personal accountability in financing your own home coupled with the financial industry not being held accountable for bad debt to individuals because of the gov’t backing led to people over-leveraged and guaranteed by our tax dollars. That alone should piss you off.

            And yet, using your own words, you spew that it was Bush’s Wall St?

            All you can come back with is “BS” “You’re lying” and rhetoric.

            Stop reading liberal news. Allow yourself to think logically. Apply some critical thinking and you’ll come to realize that faith in Obama is not faith at all, but folly.

            And still, you ignore the facts of Obama’s mentors and supporters that have shaped his views.

          • Firegoat

            Defend the Rights of Muslims but not the rest of the country.
            The 2nd, 1rst, 4rth, 10th are being violated every day, all over the US, and nothing is being done about that.
            If he isn’t defending those rights, then what ones will he defend?

          • FriendofThom

            Why is nothing being done about that? You have to ask Repubs in the House. It is up to them to impeach Obama.

        • John

          Do you really believe the military will come to the aid in an American rebellion? I currently question that. I’m not part of the military personally, but I know active duty veterans who have been asked about a scenario involving an American rebellion and whether or not they would gun down their own countrymen. Many who have seen active duty said they would not, but many of these gung-ho 18 year olds said they would. And everyone’s wondering why the military is working hard to disarm veterans when they come home. “Oh, you are negatively affected by the fact that you had to kill people overseas? You have PTSD. Better take your guns.”

        • Firegoat

          Do you want to leave your family’s security up to someone else?
          I would rather give my family a fighting chance. No matter how small that chance my be.
          Hitler used public safety as an accuse for a lot of Civil Rights violations.

        • bellevue5150

          Your right…. We don’t have to worry about foreign invasion, because they are already here in OUR country. The government has allowed them to be here. Believe what you want.

          • FriendofThom

            Who is in our country? How many? Enough to take over?

          • Norris Allen

            Muslims are killing people in Briton ,because they know they are not armed .

    • Firegoat

      I bet the people in the Ukraine would love to have the rights you are giving up.
      You could move there. They don’t have to worry about civilians having any of those EVIL GUNS lol.

    • ITSa341

      Let me address your points 1 at a time.
      1. The deadline is not the problem, the unconstitutional restrictions are the problem and will be tossed out as unconstitutional when someone is arrested for possession of one of these firearms or magazines.
      2. Firearms owners have a right to own the firearms that our government does not have a right to infringe….restrictions are infringements by definition. The 2nd amendment says nothing about if they need them, it says clearly that the right to have and bear arms may not be infringed. BTW, according to the original intent part of the importance of the right was so people could rise up if their government tries limiting or taking our freedoms.
      3. A shotgun at close range doesn’t spread enough to make a difference unless it is illegally shortened and is heavy and slow to bring to target but this is irrelevant since the 2nd amendment doesn’t limit to defense weapons for home use…..refer back to response point no 2. A shotgun will also drastically reduce any chance of a criminal wounded from having his life saved due to the shot spread after it penetrates flesh…the object in your scenario is defense not unnecessary killing.
      4. This is not a response to your point but is a point I wanted to make…do some research and get back to us after you have. Pay close attention to the majority statement from DC vs Heller about what the original intent and legal meanings are for the 2nd amendment and how they came to their conclusions. It will save you the embarrassment of trying to say the 2nd was limited to active militia….since the militia is every citizen.

  • godfeering

    we need the weapons and all our guns to protect ourselves from our own government.
    look what we have in there now. neather party is exept. there all a bounce of communists. my gun would be surrendered by the cold hand.