Republicans Kill Pro 2nd Amendment Bill in South Carolina

By: Joshua Cook
124

 


Sen. Lee Bright, who is challenging Sen. Lindsey Graham, sponsored a bill that would restore 2nd Amendment rights to South Carolina citizens. Recently Governor Nikki Haley (R) backed the proposal that would “make it legal for most South Carolinians to carry guns – concealed or in the open – without a permit.”

The bill, Constitutional Carry, stated that the 2nd Amendment is the only permit a citizen needs in order to exercise his right not simply to keep arms but to bear them as well. Unfortunately, the bill failed with a Republican majority in the senate. Only 4 Republicans voted to advance the bill out of the judiciary committee: Lee Bright, Shane Martin, Katrina Shealy, and Tom Corbin.

Sen. Larry Martin (R) was a strong and vocal opponent of the bill. One of his constituents, who asked him to advance the bill, received this response from Martin: “If the 2nd amendment has been as you interpret it, why hasn’t SC law reflected that for the last 140 years? I’m sorry but you are describing an “unlimited” right that has never been the case with the 2nd Amendment. My view of the 2nd Amendment has always been the right to own guns and keep them in our homes, business, and property and not to wear a gun whenever to wherever I pleased.”

Last week the 9th Circuit Court ruled on a 2nd Amendment case citing that citizens not only have the right to “keep” arms, but the right to “bear” them, contradicting Martin’s interpretation.

The key part of the court’s ruling was:

The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a particular purpose—confrontation.” Id.

Sadly, South Carolina is one of the 6 states that prevent citizens from exercising the full rights provided in 2nd Amendment.

As noted by Breitbart, Arizona made the move to Constitutional Carry in April 2010, when Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed a law recognizing an AZ citizens’ right to carry handguns openly or concealed without a permit. When she signed the bill she said, “This bill not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well.”

Mississippi has adopted Constitutional Carry for those who carry firearms openly and Oklahoma passed an open carry bill in 2012.

Gov. Haley has openly supported the bill and recently signed Restaurant Carry into law that allows CWP holders to conceal carry in restaurants that serve alcohol. Gov. Haley made a statement regarding Constitutional Carry, “Criminals are dangerous, and I think every resident should be allowed to protect themselves from criminals.”

State senator Shane Martin told Joshua Cook via Facebook regarding Constitutional Carry: “We tried. Unfortunately we are outnumbered.”

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]

  • Vikodlak

    Disgusting failure to uphold the constitution.

  • Kimber_TLE

    So do we only have the freedom to speak in our home, our business or on our property?

    If so… the silence will be deafening!

    • Andrew Miller

      not even those are fullproof.

  • Andrew Miller

    isn’t it reassuring to know that ‘feelings’ trump Constitutional law? There should be no restrictions, as the 2A shall not be infringed!!

  • Keith

    “If the 2nd amendment has been as you interpret it, why hasn’t SC law reflected that for the last 140 years?” Because the law was created so that White people could control Black people. Is Sen. Larry Martin really that ignorant of history?

  • Wade Dewell

    hello nazi america, rise up fight back or die a slave. adolf hitler laid down the plans in meinkampf. ” slowly erode rights little by little, tiny inperceptable cuts to the point where it can not be changed. ” in order to conquer a country you must first disarm its citizens” THOSE WHO FAIL TO LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT “LEST WE FORGET” CLEARLY ALL OF YOU DO

  • Herbert Napp

    Good luck in reelection you absolute piece of garbage.

  • Joshua Barnard

    Why are we having to have laws that just restate rights already secured in other areas. The republic acknowledges our unalienable right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment simply highlights and enumerates that it is, most especially, not to be infringed by the federal government. This is already the law of the land. If it not being obeyed, challenging this and removing the offending government bodies that are allowing this is the answer, not making another law that simply restates the law, or somehow re-emphasizes that the law should be obeyed. New law telling the people to obey old law is redundant and silly. Its a gesture, not a solution.

    • donholmes1

      Also if you went to jail or prison in the olden days the first thing returned to you upon your release was your weapon.

    • Larry Ray

      Oh goody! I’ve always wanted a Blackhawk attack helocopter, fifty caliber machinegun, M-16 with granade launcher, M1A1 Abrams tank, and finally, a 5 megaton nuclear device. Now, I just have to own fort knox to afford these things.

      • Tannim

        Are you really an idiot or just being sarcastic?

        • Larry Ray

          I thought it was pretty obvious I was being just a little bit sarcastic. But then some people are a little dense in the sarcasm department.
          Couldn’t you see the bulge in my cheek from my tongue being pressed firmly there? Oh wait. I forgot. We’re not conversing via Skype.

          • Tannim

            It’s called hashtags. Learn to use them. Sheesh!

      • donholmes1

        A little humor——– You already own them.

    • donholmes1

      Totally correct, how did we get into this predicament? and what is the solution. I had faith that American military soldiers would never turn against its own but Katrina changed my faith when the Marines did.

  • Roscoe Scally

    Mississippi clarified their law to allow open carry, but local governments are still fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. Some local governments are passing ordinances saying that firearms are prohibited on local government property, even though this is clearly illegal based on state law. Until someone puts pressure on them to remove the ordinance, or face a lawsuit, they get away with it.

    • LetsTryLibertyAgain

      Kentucky has a firearms preemption act (KRS 65.870) that prohibits counties and cities from passing any firearms related ordinances. The local governments ignored the state firearms preemption law, then they blatantly ignored it. Then, in 2012, We the People got tired of that and we compelled our legislature to pass HB 500, which put some penalties into the state’s firearms preemption act. It’s now Official Misconduct, with up to $500 fine and up to a year in jail. The fine cannot be paid with our tax dollars. Now, we have few problems with these local ninnies wanting to set up their little gun free zones.

      • Heartland Patriot

        Good job, Kentucky.

      • donholmes1

        Way to go . We can never give up. Lets all keep up the pressure

  • Charles

    I don’t understand the issue. The 2nd amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. IE: permits never have been necessary, you can carry openly or concealed, your background doesn’t matter. The only stipulation is that you be a citizen of the USA. That’s it, and yes it is that simple. The architects of the constitution wrote the constitution in 3rd grade language so there would be no misunderstanding, no interpretations necessary. The only reason for interpretation is for future laws to be referenced back to the constitution to make sure that the proposed bill/law falls in line with the tenets of the constitution.

    • Tannim

      Uh, 2A RKBA is not limited to US Citizens–it is for the PEOPLE of the nation (citizens are a subset of the People).

    • donholmes1

      Right, back in the olden days if you went to jail or prison they took your weapons only to return them when you were released. also a person open carrying did not need a permit to carry concealed when it rained and you put on your over coat. Any how that’s the way it was when I was just a kid.

    • PhoenixM

      Then I guess you would also argue that felons and the mentally ill should be able to possess firearms as well. I’m not arguing that they should or shouldn’t; I’m just pointing out that there’s a ramification of your position that you should be aware of, in case you hadn’t thought it through.

      • Charles

        Felons and the mentally ill are still citizens. That really ends that discussion point. I do think that the mentally ill need to be looked into in more depth but outside of that citizens are citizens and that’s it.

        • PhoenixM

          I admire the consistency of your position. I’ve been in an on-and-off argument with someone else on this site who insists that the 2nd Amendment is absolute – and yet, simultaneously, insists that felons & mentally ill should be an exception. And yet I’m allegedly a “troll” for pointing out the logical inconsistency in his argument.

  • n0valoco

    Authoritarians in the GOP? Shocking…

    • Heartland Patriot

      Yes, SOME of them are…unlike the Democrat Party where ALL of them are…

  • ZeroDarkThirty

    It is indeed a Unlimited Right you fool. And completely sensible too. Who in their right mind will attempt to rob people or assault them in any way if they know that a lot of law abiding citizens are packing heat? Come next election I bet those that voted against it won’t hold offices again. They all but committed political suicide. 2nd Amendment is part of the U.S Constitution/Bill of Rights and is the Supreme Law of The United States. If anyone cannot understand that. I will gladly help them pack.

    • PhoenixM

      If it’s an “unlimited right”, then why are felons and the mentally ill generally prohibited from possessing firearms?

      • Heartland Patriot

        Oh, so that’s the game you want to play…reductio ad absurdum. Start there and keep picking until you have only the cops and the elites with guns. Gimme a break.

        • PhoenixM

          My point is that there is no such thing as an “unlimited right”. There’s *always* a line drawn; the debate becomes about exactly where that line should be.

          The First Amendment *doesn’t* allow you to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater, or even to threaten someone. Why not?

          The Second Amendment doesn’t allow felons or the mentally ill to possess firearms. Why not?

          The Fourth Amendment doesn’t stop police from searching your pockets.

          The Fifth Amendment doesn’t stop police from using your *body language* against you in court, nor does it stop double jeopardy if the powers-that-be manage to try you at multiple levels of jurisdiction (i.e. Federal & State).

          So, no. “Rights”, in the way that we like to think of them in the Bill of Rights, are in no way absolute.

          • Chris D

            the reason you cite…ie yelling fire is a reason rooted in common law. As a populace we are entitled unlimited rights and held accountable if we inflict harm. The system has been contorted and twisted to deny our rights…never to draw a line, because the line was and will always be drawn with not causing harm or injury. All infringements are pre supposing the worst in Americans and thus preventing the rights we are bestowed based on the false paradigm of safety….from ourselves!

          • Tannim

            Actually, the fire in a theater thing is based on people being unable to control and be responsible for their own reactions, which is contrary to the proper exercising of rights (with the right comes the responsibility). It was made illegal because people be irresponsible and react before thinking. If properly implemented, the First Amendment allows for it, and the consequences of the stampede fall upon the stampeders, not the announcer. Think of how people freaked out over War of the Worlds–that certainly wasn’t Orson Welles’ fault, was it?

          • Chris D

            Our rights are only as absolute as the the defenders of POWER ( like you) tell us they are. Unbeknownst to you you are a parrot of tyranny and the reason we have an electorate that is despicable. If I had a tank in my front yard…you would never f*ck with me and I would never use it offensively because I believe in the reasons we have our rights and are constrained by common law.

          • waltinseattle

            what are you saying exactly? sounds like you think you have the right to a tank and base it upon our obligation to trust you? because we must believe that you believe in “why we have our rights (including those to have front yard tanks). ouch u got me spinning…

          • donholmes1

            The yelling FIRE in a theater or threatening someone is not a “freedom of speech” issue. The freedom of speech allows you to state an opinion like we are all doing right now. I also think some of us including me is miss understanding each other. I apologize if I did.

        • waltinseattle

          does not teply to the observed facts

      • Chris D

        the same reason the cops will now charge everyone they encounter as a felon. Film a cop…felon. Twitch when being cuffed…felon and on and on

        • waltinseattle

          does not reply to the observed facts

      • ZeroDarkThirty

        This pertains to law abiding citizens as unlimited. Why would you ask a question you already know the answer to? Try not to come on forums and troll. If it is attention you seek go elsewhere and leave this discussion to intelligent dialog.

        • PhoenixM

          And where in the Second Amendment does it specify that felons are excluded? That doesn’t sound terribly “unlimited” to me.

          I’m not trolling. I’m pointing out the logical inconsistency in your statement. If you’re going to claim that the right to bear arms is *truly* unlimited, then be man enough to accept that it includes felons and the mentally ill as well. Or accept that there really are limits to an “unlimited right”.

          • ZeroDarkThirty

            the mentally ill and felons are not included much in the same way children cannot go into bars and order alcoholic beverages. Both are clearly not able to exercise those rights.

          • PhoenixM

            Ordering an alcoholic is not protected by the Bill of Rights. But (as pro-firearms people are quick to remind us) the bearing of firearms is not only protected by the Bill of Rights, it’s a right that “shall not be infringed”. So which is it – is it something that “shall not be infringed” no matter what (including felonies, etc.), or do we accept that most everything we define as a “right” is actually subject to some sort of infringing?

            You can’t have it both ways.

          • ZeroDarkThirty

            what part of able bodied (minded) don’t you understand? Felons and the mentally ill are not considered able minded as they have proven they cannot function among normal society. Hence why 2nd Amendment rights do not apply to them.

          • PhoenixM

            And where in the 2nd Amendment does it even say that? Hint: It doesn’t. You’re imposing a restriction that the Founding Fathers did *not* include.

          • ZeroDarkThirty

            and you are pointlessly picking things apart. Go elsewhere and let more intelligent dialog preside here. You are an obvious idiot.

  • Travis Decker

    Wow! If the 2nd amendment only applies to your home and place of business does that mean all other Constitutionally guaranteed rights also only apply to your home or place of business?
    Do you only have free speech at your home? Do you only have the protections against search and seizure when at home? Are you only not a slave at home? Can you only drink alcohol at home? You only have the right to vote at home?

    What a seriously ridiculous and idiotic thing to say.

    • dachu3

      SC people, you better nip this in the bud as your Republicans sounds and act awfully a lot like NJ Democrats.
      And we all know how much of 2A NJ allows to its citizens. The entire NJ is a gun free zone with few exceptions.
      Of course, the criminals don’t follow these laws anyway…

    • waltinseattle

      as im omce uppn sa times snd in many variiois states, eacj state ssid what day and yes whsy place alcohol could be drank, or not? there were plenty such, even as there were laws against carry of gun within the city limit etc. gun reztrictive laws being rhino? fuh, yes. because that was not a r v d issue in past times. unregulated milotia being a most modern “discovered” liberty, as conservstive judges love to call other such…

  • RightUnite

    Time to clean the RHINO’s out of office!

  • Carl Taylor

    The 2nd Amendment was to prevent the newly formed Federal Govt from abusing what we call our “rights”. Hence why the first 10 amendments to the Constitution was called “The Bill of Rights” It took power away from the Federal Govt. So to say that S. Carolina is violating the 2nd Amendment is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Unless S. Carolina’s State Constitution has a second amendment as well and it that reads similar to the US Constitution. If not, then S. Carolina has the say one what it’s citizens can/cannot do in regards to firearms.

    • Richard W.

      This is blatantly wrong. A states constitution cannot override the Constitution of the United States. Period. Any law made that violates the Constitution of the United States is void and therefore not enforceable. It even says that in the Constitution. I recommend reading it and understanding it before you try thinking out loud again.

      • Chris D

        article 1 sec 8…read it.
        article 5…. second to last paragraph…supreme law of the land except when in direct conflict (contrary to) what is already ratified and contained in this constitution

        • Robert Zraick

          I believe the 10th amendment implies that a State has the right to nullify any UNCONSTITUTIONAL law from the central government.
          The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, hence the supremacy clause, however many of the laws coming out of the central government are not Constitutional.

      • Lloyd Anderson

        Richard it is you that need’s to go study history and law for the maxim of law that states “the created can never be greater than the creator” meaning when the Constitution was written the States Constitutions supersede it because it was the Sovereign States that created it. So technically it is the supreme law of the land that it has jurisdiction over and that is not the states.

        • Chris D

          exactly. article 1 sec 8. Laws written for the government and executive depts

        • Carl Taylor

          Lloyd you speak the truth.

    • Qari

      While it should be that way, in the 1920′s much of the bill of rights was incorporated into state constitutions by the Supreme court. I agree, however, that the original intent of the Bill of Rights was for the Federal government, and states had much more freedom than that.

      • donholmes1

        You are the fool I was referent to in my comment. What? the bill of rights ( the first 10 amendments) incorporated in the 1920s? Actually you are one of voters I was referring to . How is your Obama thingy doing for you?

        • Qari

          Yeah. The states did not have the bill of rights applied to them until the 1920′s. BEfore the civil war, you have to realize, states were really sovereign, it would be unthinkable to claim that the bill of rights superceded them. In time, from 1865 on, as the idea of states changed, so did how we see the Federal government and states rights. Here this can explain it better than I can, since you already called me a fool and I’m pretty sure that means you aren’t interested in hearing more : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

          • donholmes1

            A judge cannot change or incorporate any part of the constitution, it takes a constitutional amendment to do that . To date this has not happened. My comment started over Sen. Larry Martins statement that the 2nd amendment allows guns only in your home.

          • Qari

            I don’t know why you felt you needed to respond to me, I was addressing someone who said that the Federal constitutional amendments don’t apply to the States. They shouldn’t but have been increasingly incorporated at the beginning of this century. Not that I’m for gun limitation laws, I just believe in state sovereignty more than I do getting my way without recourse to established institutions that help protect liberty.

            As far as me being a fool Obama supporter, I’m not a supporter of any candidates (maybe the two Pauls) really, and would rather see the whole edifice of government replaced with private alternatives. Before you call me a fool for that, let me just say that some really good work has been done on the topic by Rothbard, David Friedman, Bob Murphy, Hans Herman-Hoppe and a few others and it might be worth looking at.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            No, I think maybe you are misunderstanding what she’s saying. Yes, I’m a conservative, and yes, I’m a lawyer. Before the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was largely construed as being a limit on Federal power, at least those bits “Congress shall make no law,” etc. Even after the Constitution, a number of the States actually had established churches! This was something prohibited to the Federal government of course, in the 1st Am. It was not until after the Civil War with the anti-slavery/civil rights amendments, which had to be enforceable at state level, that courts began regularly affirming that all the amendments were enforceable and applicable upon to the states.

          • Qari

            Wow! Thank you! I actually didn’t realize the issue was enforcing the ban on slavery. Thank you so much, that explains a large blank spot in my understanding of history.

    • Thomas Bauer

      the constitution is the supreme law of the land no state can make a law that contradicts it. period end of discussion Carl Taylor I suggest you go back and read the constitution before you spout about something you know nothing about

      • Carl Taylor

        You sir are dead wrong. But its hard to blame you cause you probably got the same public education that everyone else is brainwashed with. The Constitution is a framework for how Government will operate. It grants POWER to the Federal Government. The “Bill of Rights” was added so the Constitution would be ratified by all the participating States. And what the Bill of Rights did was STRIP AWAY power from the newly formed Federal Gov. States have the ultimate power with their own laws unless they contradict each other, then that’s when the Fed comes in.

    • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

      South Carolina Constitution: 1895:
      “A well regulated m ilitia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.”

  • RE Hafner

    Throw the RINOs out.!

  • Pchaucer

    I think Constitutional Carry should be the law of the land. Having said that, This part of the story confuses me. “Sadly, South Carolina is one of the 6 states that prevent citizens from exercising the full rights provided in 2nd Amendment.” I could be wrong but I think there are only 6 states that have Constitutional Carry so it really should read one of the 44 states, etc.

    • William

      South Carolina is one of six states that bars open carry—California, New York, Illinois, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas—which is a fundamental part of constitutional carry.

  • donholmes1

    This is what happens when you people vote in people with a 3rd grade education and actually believes that the constitution is a myth. This also shows the mentality of the voter. Where does anything in the whole constitution even resemble the words or even a meaning that you can only have a gun in your house FOOL?

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    Remember these traitors at the next election. Make sure everyone, particularly the other legislators know that these politicians are being retired because they voted to deprive South Carolinians of their gun rights.

    You have an ordinance. We have ordnance!

  • Heartland Patriot

    So SOME Republicans didn’t want the bill to go through…we call them RINOs.

  • LoneWiseMan

    There are no real differences between 99% of Republicans and Democrats. They’re all extremely wealthy, power hungry, and authoritative.

    • Tannim

      and extremely stupid, too!

      • Robert Zraick

        They are not stupid. They are without conscience or souls.

  • RaymondT

    to bear is to have it with you….. that’s plain english. vote this RINO’s out.

  • http://www.joshuascottmccullough.com/ Josh McCullough

    Way too much time and energy is wasted discussing this and that gun-control law. People need to step back and realize that a law won’t “fix” anything – criminals don’t obey laws.

    • Firecat

      People generally don’t obey laws, criminals or not.
      Making it criminal to have a gun isn’t going to change that, true.
      But it would make a lot more people into ‘criminals’,

      • http://www.joshuascottmccullough.com/ Josh McCullough

        Yup!

      • dave7777

        It already has in CT. about 100000 gun owners are defying the new law that requires them to come in and register with the state.
        The legislatures are stunned that there would be this defiance. They are now felons.

  • Clay Cooper

    “In 2005 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling
    that received little attention when handed down, but which is extremely
    pertinent to today’s gun debate, found that police officers are not
    constitutionally bound to protect citizens.”

    The cold hard truth of the slogan of commitment on Police Units “To serve
    and to protect” is dangerously false and misleading resulting in serious
    consequences or death that could’ve been prevented by armed citizens. But our
    Government continues to maliciously disproportionately target minorities and
    poor people with less access to legal defense. The fact of the matter is you
    are on your own, PERIOD……

    I listen to those who oppose concealed carry and open carry
    including just flat out against having a firearm. What is obvious is about the
    antigun gun side, their beliefs are not at all based on facts and definitely
    ill informed. They have no practical experience or they must carry the tune
    from higher up with malicious intents. But most of all, they believe you must
    share in their own sickness (hoplophobia, n. Irrational, morbid
    fear of guns) and
    beliefs, there is no other way but there way. To own, to carry or not to own or
    not to carry should be left to one’s own choices. Governments will use the
    excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in
    reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position.” As one
    Luby Massacre Survivor to Senate: “I’m Not a Victim of Guns, But of Lawmakers Who
    ‘Legislate Me Out of the Right to Protect Myself and My Family’”

    As for myself, I’ve been a victim once, never again!

    -Clay Cooper

  • Michael Norton

    In light of the federal government buying billions of hollow point bullets to be used on the American people, Open carry and concealed carry should be legalized everywhere in the US. This will give our government employees the message, if they try using those hollow point bullets on us, we are ready for them.

    • PhoenixM
      • dave7777

        Who is Snopes to question motives of the federal government?
        We are just supposed to accept Snopes conclusions as fact?

        Why did Homeland Security purchase sniper rifles? Within the past two weeks, another purchase of sniper rifle ammo. Withing the past three week, the Post Office purchased ammo. The Post Office??

        • PhoenixM

          Yeah, the Post Office couldn’t possibly need ammo for the armed Federal agents it employs as part of the USPIS, after all.

          You know, I can find articles going back *years* fretting about the DHS burning up huge amounts of money on ammo and firearms. The comments sections of those articles predict “civil unrest”, FEMA camps, and all other kinds of nonsense. And yet none of it ever seems to come to pass, now does it?

          My question is, when we go through this same exact thing a year from now, or two years from now, are you going to remember the fervor with which *you* are currently predicting the government using force against its own people? Are you going to remember (a year from now, or two years from now) how your predictions from *today* failed to come true?

          The people on message boards in 2012 were positive, absolutely positive, that civil war was about to erupt any day. But here we are, two years later, and nothing has happened. And yet, the same paranoid ramblings continue to emanate from the militia types like yourself. Heck, I remember militia types in the 1980s that were positive that revolution was right around the corner. Don’t you guys learn from your failed predictions? At what point do you accept that maybe, just maybe, you’re wrong?

          • johnny b

            Are you really that gullible??? or just a stooge for the government???? WHY does the government need the weapons and ammo they have accumulated??? Because they are preparing for a civil war that they are causing…. You are a troll that is here to cause the people to be unprepared…
            EVERYONE MUST be prepared and stock up on guns and ammo in order to defend themselves and their families WHEN the civil war starts and it will be started by the government….
            We now have NSA spying on everyone and military type vehicles being handed out to police departments and you have the audacity to nay-say that a civil war won’t happen????
            Do you work for the democons and have you earned your 30 pieces of silver????

          • PhoenixM

            So the government is going to start a civil war so that it can overthrow… itself?

            Anyway, here’s a chart showing the amount of ammo ordered by the DHS by year: http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/the-history-of-dhs-ammunition-purchases.html

            As you’ll notice, the year they bought the most ammo – by far – was 2008. George Bush was president at that time. It was a completely different administration than the current one.

            So… was the Bush Administration planning on this civil war that you’re talking about? I mean, if the only plausible reason for the DHS to buy ammo is because they’re preparing for war, then why didn’t the war happen before that administration left office? Did the Obama administration say, “Oh, look, the Bush administration was planning on launching a war against the American people, but they didn’t get around to it, so we should to it instead!”? Such a hypothesis fails an incredibly simple plausibility test.

            You’re talking about heavy ammo spending that spans TWO administrations that are on OPPOSITE ends of the political spectrum. They’re not friends, period. Unless you’re going to claim “OMG it’s the Illuminati behind it all!!!”, the facts simply don’t add up.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            It is NOT just DHS, though.

          • Geoff Abercrumbley

            They are probably using them all up in Ukraine right now.

            But it’s not a matter of if but when the New World Order has an outright marital law scenario play out in the United States. I don’t care if you, Phoenix, are here to remember being “wrong” but history is 100% backing up that “eventually” bloody revolution and “regime change” and new eras emerge to confront Peoples from every corner of the earth, from every epoch in known human history. We don’t need your nay saying stupidity, or paid Trollduggery as it may be, to befuddle us on something so basic, so common sense, so easy to see… as that a “New World Order” is being birthed and we are going to have birth pains during the delivery… no matter how it all turns out in the end.

            Did I mention DHS doesn’t need that much freaking ammo no matter how many years they’ve been buying it up. And BTW, I exposed Bush so hardcore people like you (in case you are not a pro troll) wouldn’t even “go there”. Don’t throw that up to my face like you have others. You are a lightweight Bush hater. Don’t bother.

          • PhoenixM

            “Paid trollduggery”. Sure. Because anyone who disagrees with your hardcore New World Order conspiracy beliefs must obviously be a paid troll.

            The idea of “New World Order”, in its current form, has been around since the 1940s. The people who jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon back then – people who were positive that it was going to happen in a couple of decades at the most – are long since dead. They went to their graves never seeing the NWO that they feared coming to exist – as will you. But don’t worry: there will always be conspiracy theorists ready to take up the banner.

          • PhoenixM
          • Gardentoolnumber5

            Very bumfuddling that you believe there is a wide gulf between Bush and Obama. Both are big government central planners. Just as Clinton and Bush before them were big government central planners. It’s like choosing between fascism and socialism, both are on the left of the political spectrum. But hey, we get to choose between the two, the fascist or the socialist, every two, four and six years.

          • PhoenixM

            For the relevance of the matter at hand, it doesn’t matter whether or not Bush and Obama have used similar *techniques* over the years; what matters is that they’re on opposite sides of the political fence. If Bush really had been having agencies stockpiling weapons so as to declare martial law, it wouldn’t make the least bit of sense that Obama would come in and say “Oh hey, I should stockpile weapons and prepare to declare martial law too.”

            Again, it fails a basic plausibility test.

          • T. Edward Price

            PhoenixM: “You’re talking about … TWO administrations that are on OPPOSITE ends of the political spectrum. They’re not friends, period.”
            “[W]hat matters is that they’re on opposite sides of the political fence.”

            You have exposed your nonexistent credibility. There has been very little REAL change in political theories in the White House since 1860. To say that Bush and Obama are polar opposites in political persuasion and policy, is to say the the Eastern Diamondback rattlesnake and the Western Diamondback rattlesnake are polar opposites in the animal kingdom. A rattlesnake is a rattlesnake is a rattlesnake.

          • Gardentoolnumber5

            Sorry, because you feel there is a “political fence” because one has an R after their name and one has a D, is a large part of this nation’s problems. Congrats, you are in the majority in the above regard. It is a shame that ignorant people keep voting party expecting change and the policies stay the same or expanded. This goes for your justification that since Bush was purchasing ammo there is nothing wrong or sinister in the Obama admin doing the same. As another poster pointed out to you, history bears witness that as government grows, liberty decreases. And it is the state that has been used throughout history that has caused the most violence and death.

          • mikrat

            “they’re on opposite sides of the political fence.”

            Thats called theater for the masses (Bread & Circuses) – and you seem to buy it.

          • Jimmy L Manning

            See and I thought Obama was sworn in as POTUS on Jan 20,2008. Well there are those 20 days so I guess technically you are right about Bush being President in 2008.

            No one is insinuating that the goverment is trying to “overthrow” itself. The main idea being presented here is a removal of the liberties and rights of people. The Government trying to instill itself as a new entity, a dictatorship, or some other form of terrorism that does not answer to the will of the people.

            You are quite welcome to live in your ignorance and blissfully going about your daily life with a hope that all is perfect and right. There are however those that choose to prepare for a day we hope and pray will never come. We love our country and we love the priniciples it was founded on. What we are not happy with is the way its being run. Political Partisanship aside, can you really look at this USA and tell me you think we are on a good road?

          • PhoenixM

            Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009.

            You’re off by an entire year, genius.

            If you’re wrong about something this simple, stop and think about how many other things you might be wrong about.

          • dave7777

            Friend, I sincerely hope I am wrong. If I am wrong, I will have wasted nothing but my concern. If, God help us, I am right…I’ll try to help people like you. I’m sure the people in Ukraine didn’t see this coming last year.

          • PhoenixM

            All I ask of you is, if you do turn out to be wrong, please REMEMBER that you were. Don’t be on a forum like this 2, 5, 10 years from now saying, “Yep, the war is coming any day now, I just know it!” Like I said, I knew people in the 80s who believed that… and they went to their graves, 20-30 years later, still believing it.

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            And it was during the tenure of President George W. Bush that many coastal One Percenters first floated the notion of secession, to join East and West edges with Canada, and allow the remainder of those “flyover” states to confederate into a new union derisively referred to as “Jesusland.”

          • Mr.Mike

            It is better to be prepared and ready for what might happen and it to never happen, then to not be ready and it happen. Besides, people drawing attention to it is quite possibly the one thing that is holding them back from implementing their plans, for fear of people who are prepared. That and it helps them by saying see these people are just conspiracy nuts. We would never do anything wrong. If you trust a government that keeps encroaching upon your rights and claim it is only for your good or safety then you had better study history. Because history does repeat itself. If you watch a movie that keeps playing the same scenario over and over while only changing the actors you should already know what is to come.

          • dave7777

            I agree with you Mike. Nice comment. Why take out flood insurance when there is no flood?

          • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

            And I remember hippie types in the 60s who were certain “The Revolution” was imminent.

            It took them a while, but they finally got one of them elected to the White House.

            PS — without peeking at the answer: First, tell us how many actual law enforcement agents the Post Offfice has. I am questioning neither their existence nor that they ought to exist. Second (here’s the no-peeking part): from your knowledge and experience of firearms, calculate how many rounds of ammo you think such an agent should need in a year: some number, perhaps monthly or quarterly, for training and qualification, some amount to actually carry on duty, and some amount actually expended in the line of duty (probably zero — I don’t hear many stories about USPS cops killing people). When you have that number established as a reasonable amount, look up how much the USPS is actually purchasing, per capita each such officer. Then share the results with us, to ease our fears.

          • Nick

            Yep, and the “hippie type” turned out to be just as much mainstream as the mainstream.

            The USPS has about 2,200 armed agents, last I knew, including uniformed officers. I believe the standard issue sidearm is the M9, for which the standard carry is usually three loads. Three 15-round magazines makes 45 per officer, for 99,000 rounds dedicated to daily carry. Practice/qualification probably takes at minimum 100 rounds per, so that’s 220,000 rounds. Assuming quarterly re-qualification gives us a total annual consumption of 880,000 rounds. Add it all up, and we’re nearly to a million rounds, almost 900,000 of which are used every year. I know in the USAF, we kept twice the requirement on hand to cover bad lots, recalls, and contingencies, so let’s say 1.94 million rounds.

            And that’s for quarterly practice/qualification. If the requirement is for monthly quals, the total number of rounds just for practice/qualification goes past 2.5 million.

            As for looking up the quantity they’re purchasing, don’t you know? I find lots of headlines screaming about “giant” purchases of ammunition, but not a darn article that actually gives a number. I’m thinking it’s a lot of sound and fury from the screaming herd, signifying nothing.

    • dave7777

      They also purchased sniper rifles (see Ukraine sniper deaths today), sniper rifle ammo, tanks, and other weaponry. They are ready. Are we?
      I strongly believe in the State Militias. Some states have them. others don’t. Texas and Georgia have them. The militias give some semblance to organizing in case such resistance is required. They do not need direction or approval of the states or any other governmental body.

    • mikrat

      We don’t need it Legalized to carry – we already have the right. State “Laws” can not trump the 2nd amendment.

      Why does everyone want permission?

      Legalizing anything means asking permission to exercise a right.

  • hunta5

    This is the response I received from Sen. Larry Martin

    RE: Constitutional Carry Bill (S. 115 ~ Senate Judiciary Committee Mailbox

    Thanks for your email. It simply is not true that I’m blocking a vote on S. 115 in the Judiciary Committee. The bill was taken up last Tuesday, and it will be up for another vote next week. There are 23 members, one-half of the entire Senate membership, on the committee, and all of its members who are present and voting will decide what to do with the bill, not me alone.

    I can appreciate our obvious difference of opinion about the need for minimal training and a background check in order to carry a weapon. I’m more than a little surprised that you find my comment in this regard appalling, particularly since you cite the PoliceOne.com survey of police officers that favors “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians”. That’s precisely what I have worked for during my during my time in the Legislature. In my thirty plus years of service, my support for the 2nd amendment has never been questioned until this debate on a bill that was just introduced for the first time in 2012. When I first entered the General Assembly there was no CWP law and no legal ability for a citizen in SC to carry a weapon on his person beyond the borders of his property. I helped to change that longstanding public policy for law abiding citizens. I have an A plus rating from the National Rifle Association for my longtime support of our gun rights. I’ve championed the CWP law and just led the successful effort in the state Senate on the restaurant carry bill. I also successfully handled the state Senate bill that resulted in our state’s Stand Your Ground law. Does that record sound like Harry Reid or President Obama or a “gun grabber” as I’ve been recently called? On the other hand, look at the “anti-gun” issues that I have never supported during my service and don’t support such as a ban on assault rifles, gun clips, gun registration, or a gun ban of any sort.

    Thanks again for being in touch with me.

    Best regards,

    Larry Martin

    • dave7777

      His reasoning…it’s OK to have an unregistered gun in the house in case your house is broken into. You have a right to protect yourself. However, should you dare go to the grocery store, you don’t have that right of protection. Stupid.

    • Qari

      I disagree with him, but this is the most authentic response from a congressperson I have ever read. I don’t like him for his position, but at least this seems like he read what you said and responded thoughtfully. Also, I didn’t realize SC was so restrictive about guns.

  • JimboSliceOG

    R.I.N.O., Neo-CON (emphasis on CON), doucheschazzle (emphasis on douche) “republican” that doesn’t defend the rule of law. Got oxymoron? Shall not be infringed. Read the constitution. The words “keep” and “bear” both appear in that document. GFY Larry Martin

  • livefree1200cc

    Sounds like the smart South Carolinan’s will be voting out this jackass Larry Martin if they know whats good for them….and anyone else that voted this bill down

  • Cory Goulding

    VOTE Them Out!!

    • mikrat

      If voting actually worked it would have been made illegal long ago.

      Its for entertainment purposes only.

  • Jimmy L Manning

    Sounds like Sen Martin will be out very soon. Idiots

  • NikolaTesla

    There are more than 6, yes? Ga. for one is very restrictive!

  • spin43

    Who did Gramnesty bribe today?

  • mikrat

    “sponsored a bill that would restore 2nd Amendment rights to South Carolina citizens.”

    What utter Bullshit. EVERYONE already has the natural born right to carry and protect themselves. A BILL only gives you a privilege.

    Why in the world does everyone in this country sit around on there fat asses waiting for stuffed suits to Tell them what they can or cant do?

    Oh wait – you still have fantasy sports and can still get shitty lite beer at the gas station.

    Never mind – Carry on Sheep.

  • Roger Cotton

    Senator Martin, not only are you wrong about the 2nd A, but you are now exposed.

  • ROBINHOOD7200

    GETTING RID OF LARRY MARTIN WOULD BE THE BEST THING SOUTH CAROLINA HAS DONE FOR IT’S SELF IN MANY YEARS.

  • gitarzan57

    Vermont (VERMONT!) has Constitutional Carry, fer cryin’ out loud! I live in Virginia, a “shall issue” state. I just completed my CCW course and all I need do is deliver proof to the local sheriff’s office and wait. I plan on moving to the Columbia area (my son lives in Lexington) as I fell in love with SC years ago (son graduated from USC. HOW ‘BOUT THEM COCKS!). Hope I’ll be able to carry concealed when I make the move.