What Will Owners of AK-47's Do If They Are Outlawed?


While some have expressed surprise at Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's response to the issue of regulating arms, what he said should really be no surprise. In fact, he has said much the same thing in the past. In light of the response to the Aurora shooting and the current talk in the media over gun control, especially involving AK-47s, it makes me wonder what owners of such weapons would do if they were suddenly outlawed.

Scalia was on to speak about his new book Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. In doing so, he took on several issues, including a two and a half minute segment to speak in regards to whether the U.S. Constitution will allow for regulations or gun control laws.

Chris Wallace had asked in regards to regulations such as high capacity magazine or other assault weapons whether they could be regulated Constitutionally. The National Journal reports,

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.

Scalia was pretty sure that cannons were not considered in the Second Amendment, but was unsure about rocket launchers. "Obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried," he said. "It’s ‘to keep and bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."

David Codrea of the Examiner writes why this should not have come as a shock to anyone who has been paying attention. He reports,

While treated as a breaking revelation to the point of garnering the headline position on The Drudge Report at this writing, in big red letters, no less, Scalia’s position is hardly news to those who pay attention to such things. The 2008 opinion he wrote for the majority in the landmark District of Columbia v Heller case made that clear, causing no small amount of consternation among gun rights advocates.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia asserted. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con­cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire­arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Scalia’s opinion should have been no surprise even back then. In a footnote on page 137 for his 1997 book, “A Matter of Interpretation,” he wrote “"Of course, properly understood, [the Second Amendment] is no limitation upon arms control by the states."

He goes on to make an attempt to argue against Scalia at this point,

For someone represented by the establishment as an “originalist,” Scalia’s views are anything but. In “A View of the Constitution,” which colleague Brian Puckett writes “was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860,” William Rawle, “a contemporary of the Founders and the man to whom George Washington offered an appointment as the first U.S. Attorney General,” offered a vastly different opinion.

“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people,” Rawle wrote in Chapter X, “OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.”

“Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature,” Rawle continued. “But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

While I agree with what is said here, I don't know that is what Scalia was actually saying. He did point to things that were found to be misdemeanors during the time of the Founders such as carrying weapons that were considered "frightening weapons" and he referred to a kind of ax.

But here's the real issue. I think most of us would agree that we don't want to walk around with suitcase nukes or even have surface-to-air missiles and don't think it a good idea for everyone to have them, the problem comes in what people want to refer to as "frightening weapons." If an ax got attention, just imagine what would today.

Exhibit A would be the AK-47. It is being proclaimed in the media and by politicians as some fearsome weapon. Honestly it is not more fearsome than my AR-15. I mean if you are faced with a .22 pistol pulled on you or an AR-15 pointed at you tell me which one you are going to be fearful of. The truth is in a situation where a gun is pointed at you, it really doesn't matter what it looks like does it?

I've said before that the Founders who formed the Constitution were involved in doing things that, at least in my opinion, clearly violated the document they signed. That doesn't make it right. I can appreciate though that one would go back to the text and the history of those men to try and interpret the text and if that is all that is done then we would have to conceded that yes there can be regulations and what I mean by that is that a selection of weapons could be determined to be regulated and we've seen that in our history. For instance, the AK-47, along with other weapons, were banned by the U.S.

Before people go off on me, understand that I am simply putting forth what can be argued. As far as I'm concerned the Second Amendment had to do with protecting one's self, family, and property. It was closely tied to militia as well. While a firearm can be used to hunting and other things, that was not the provision outlined in the Second Amendment. In addition I would say that firearms are key to fending off tyrannical government.

With that said, what are owners of AK-47's going to do, should the government decide to outlaw all arms except for say the .22? Notice what they would be doing. They would allow you to keep and bear a firearm, they would just limit your selection of firearms to own legally. Let's be honest, the Constitution does not state we can own any weapon we want. It does state that the federal government cannot take away our rights to own and carry a firearm.

Now, think further and many of you will already see this coming. If the population is left with only .22 caliber handguns and rifles and the tyrannical government we see growing now decides to turn on us completely including using outside forces such as Mexico, Canada or UN Forces, what match will that be?

The idea that types of firearms should be banned because they "appear" to some people as frightening is just silly to me. Unfortunately, Scalia has demonstrated here the open door that the Obama administration will, not may, try to push through should he get a second term.

It is my opinion that no firearm should be banned based on its appearance, nor more regulations be put into law because of a guns magazine capacity. The reasoning is very simple. Those laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. They do not deter criminals, or the "flagitious" among us, as William Rawle wrote. They will only serve to weaken the people of our nation who believe in the good that firearms provide. More regulations will never do what they are meant to do. They will only make innocent people more vulnerable to wicked people.

Firearms in the hands of patriots are a threat to tyranny, a fear to criminals, security to individuals, and the protector of all other rights we have been given by our Creator. If firearms are continually regulated by emotional uptight liberals and spineless "conservatives" then we may very well have to be considered outlaws because once guns are taken, they will never be returned.

View the interview here. The remarks from Scalia on gun regulation begins around the 7:00 mark.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






  • http://www.facebook.com/fotoman7 Larry Reynolds

    I believe that if a tyranical government decides to try to disarm its citizens, there are many veterans that will band together. BHO is afraid of that. I also believe the active duty military would not march against its citizens. The police? Now thats another story.

  • Susy

    I would say, buy everything you can before this goes through.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rwyatthaines Raeman Haines

    Clearly Scalia is looking for wiggle room here . When the Constitution was framed , drafted and signed , a cannon was the most formidable weapon around fire arm wise and much to heavy to lug around . Today , a cannon is still to large to lug around . Hand held rocket launchers are aslo to big to lug about . and any gun , no matter what size or what it looks like is terrifying to any reasonable person if looking at it from the wrong end , but so is a knife , baseball bat or axe . Are all of those items going to be banned too ?

    To borrow a quote from one of my favorite books and motion pictures " A gun is a tool , no better or worse than any other tool " . That from "SHANE" . The tool becomes bad when in the hand of bad people or when not handled properly . An armed society is a safe and polite society , people tend to behave in a more civilized manner . There are no Hollywood gunfights at the slightest perceived insult . If one looks seriously at the history of the old west there were very few gunfights although Hollywood would wish us to believe otherwise . In reality , aside from daily day to day survival , the Wild West was pretty tame . The 1920's and 1930's were much more dangerous due to the Depression years and the explosion of bank robbers and criminal types trying to get rich quick .

    My suggestion to all the gun grabbers and political types and the liberal judges who support them . Pull your heads out of that body cavity you got them shoved up and smell what you are shoveling . Then address the real issues and problems you ignore and stop worrying about what you perceive and want .

    • http://www.facebook.com/bruce.lytle.1 Bruce Lytle

      Just a note here on why the 20's and (early) 30's were so violent. Had to do with the 18th Amendment and the Profit opportunities resulting from that. Why do you think we have the same type of drive-by's today?

  • Dave

    The gun grabbers can come get the bullets first!

  • Don

    Who owns an actual AK-47? Full auto!? Are they not talking about look a likes semi-autos? These are not assault rifles. Think you need a special permit for a full auto costing a lot of money. Such dishonesty.

    • gfr

      Exactly right. You can't register a fully automatic weapon that was manufactured after 1986, which means that a real AK47 would cost thousands of dollars because of scarcity. Ironically you can buy a fully automatic AK47 in the Pakistan tribal areas for $20.

    • aintthispeachy

      Thank you,.... The hoops that you have to jump through to go fully auto are huge, not to mention the money involved. Another thing is in full auto it is very hard to hit a target so whats the point. And the congressman complaining about 100 round magazines... That is a stupid range toy they always jam. If you look on You tube at military footage they never use anything but the standard magazine.I am a gun guy and if I wanted to get a Suppressor "silencer" for my 300 dollar .22 pistol it would cost me $700.00 If I am given approval from law enforcement and then it would take about three months to actually get it. All this talk by Dem congressman is pathetic because for the most part none of them know what they are talking about. The one truth of life they will never understand is CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAWS!!!! Sorry ,...so creating more laws is just a feel good measure to some and disarming the proletariat to others. You want to end gun violence like aurora,..Execute that guy 30 days after the crime by firing squad on live TV. You know in30 years our grand kids are going to ask who is James Holmes and we will have to think hard to remember what he did.

    • crumudgen

      The Tax Stamp is $200, not very expensive at all. But since they closed the registry in 86, the supply of FA has dried up and a M 16 will run $8000+ , a MAC10 is $3000- $5000. A suppressor for a .22 is only $200 so you will have $400 in it. Buy a good .22 can that is useable on an AR-15 for $500 and you can use it on rimfire also. It will take 6+ months to get the approval from the ATF for the stamp.

  • gfr

    I'm not sure that Scalia is correct when he says that the 2nd amendment doesn't cover cannons. I remember reading an account where a couple of guys back in the early 1700s went duck hunting. They used a 3" bore cannon loaded with birdshot mounted on a swivel in a pontoon boat. They took more than 100 ducks with one shot! It probably couldn't have been hand-carried.
    If the purpose of the second amendment is to allow the militia (being all able bodied men), to take on the regular army then it would seem to me that at the very least fully automatic weapons should be allowed. It is notable that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are equipped with fully automatic AK47s, RPG-7s and occasionally 81mm mortars.
    While the US military would win every battle, I think that they would eventually lose the war. US Military commanders try very hard to avoid civilian casualties. How much more difficult would their mission be if they were killing Americans?

  • http://christiancitizenshipforum.blogspot.com/ OneCitizenOfTheRepublic

    One only needs to look at the original intent of our founding fathers...for self defense and for protection from a undisciplined government...and in order to protect oneself from a out of control government...exactly what weapon would not be needed?

  • Gene PANTANO

    Hmm I wonder why the PARKER dude was not in the NEWS....as if I didn't know..
    All the morons in DC put together -- could not solve one simple problem requiring intelligent thought.. What a disgrace..and the doper President....he could care less ...
    We need NO gun laws ..NONE..... Assuault weapons ??? Ther eis no such thing.. That was a term some dufus dreamed up years ago... The 'ASSAULT" weapons the brainless Politicians are against do not exist..they are ALL SEMI AUTO play guns..NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS...
    We need NO LAWS ON GUNS.... WE NEED LAWS from the STATES....
    punishing the mis-use of FIREARMS...and good stiff penalties..
    I tell you... I see no brains in this Country anymore...With a doper in the WHITE HOUSE..that has had all his history sealed...we are ALL in bad shape.. He is not an AMERICAN ... GOD BLESS US ALL.....WE need it...
    Barry The Dope Dealer; one reason Obama's school files are SEALED.
    Barry was quite the accomplished marijuana addicted enthusiast back in high school and college. Excerpts from David Maraniss' Barack Obama: The Story "Barry the Dope dealer" with the elaborate drug culture surrounding the president when he attended Punahou School in Honolulu and Occidental College in Los Angeles . He definitely inhaled, a hell of a lot of smoke

    • Flashbackjack

      Obama gives drug dealers a bad name.

  • BigC

    These idiot Libturds think because an AK looks so mean, it's more deadly! The truth is, it is vastly less powerful than 95% of the rifles used in the USA to hunt deer-size and larger game.
    An "assault" rifle is just a name for a weapon that fires a cartridge larger (7.62 x39, 5.56, ex), than a sub-machine gun (9mm, 45 ACP, ex.) but smaller and less powerful than a battle rifle (30-06, 308, ex.).
    Educate yourself idiots, a little learning never hurts!

    • michigan patriot

      assault rifle is a term the liberals/antigun nuts come up with to portray a fearsome gun. an assault gun in one definition the libturd politicians called it any gun used by our military which means mossberg 500 winchester mod 12 reminton 870 all guns used by our us military at one time or another.
      winchester mod 12 stevens 562 WWII, mosberg 500 remington 870 vietnam, korea maybe desert storm

    • crumudgen

      Wrong, read some history. While the term is being mis-used, it was a term coined by the Germans to describe a fully automatic rifle using a cartridge that was between a battle rifle ( 8mm mauser) and a sub machine gun which uses a pistol cartridge ( 9mm). Main thing is that it needs to be capable of AUTOMATIC FIRE.

    • michigan patriot

      lets nit pick read the assault weapons law that was passed under Clinton they defined any weapon used by our military including pistols, shotguns and rifles semi auto , bolt action
      or any weapon capable of holding more than 10 rounds that was a center fire rimfires were excluded yes your are correct
      but you Also need to read the liberals definition as it was written for the purposes of banning or limiting ownership
      why do you think the NRA and hunters put up a big fight
      to get some wording changed so hunting firearms would be exempt otherwise the winchester mod 12,stevens mod 562
      mossberg 500 savage 110 308 sniper or bull barrell remington 870 ithaca 37

  • napensnake

    If we are going to outlaw things because they look scary, perhaps we should outlaw spiders, Democrats in the White House, a Second Lieutenant with a map and compass, etc.

    • BigBoa

      Old Big Ears,,,aka O'Bozo,, aka King Putt and his Bride of King Kong wife should certainly qualify....

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/OC2HNCB7QOZTKUNYDBFYE4QGUY Phillip in TX

      We can add Nancy Pelosi to the list.

  • Crusader556

    If Assault weapons are outlawed, I think that there will be a huge fight on their hands. It's not going to happen like Britain or Australia. The American shooting public will either fight back, or hide the weapons until they can fight back. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end.

    • http://www.facebook.com/james.r.simmons.14 James R. Simmons

      They won't be on the receiving end, they will be cowering in some bunker.

    • how2john

      They are NOT "assault " weapons, they are PERSONAL DEFENSE weapons, AGAINST the assualtors. Since when do we go along with NOT being able to defend ourselves!!!

  • http://fingerlakesfreepress.wordpress.com/ SgPoyzer

    We don't as permission to exercise our God given rights to Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, nor do we accept any limitations on how or with what we defend those rights.

  • jim

    If the second amendment is for a well regulated militia to deal with a tyrannical govt what good is it if we are allowed to keep our pea shooters while our tyrannical govt has armed drones, guns that can fire 800 rounds a minute and millions of other machine guns..... we are screwed from the start !!! whats good for the goose is good for the gander if the govt has them so should WE THE PEOPLE !!!!!!

    • gfr

      1) There are more of us than there are of them.
      2) Most of the regular troops will not want to shoot their relatives.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZAPEUNLZOXHBAKKVE3CC3S6EVE josephm

      dont bet on it.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZAPEUNLZOXHBAKKVE3CC3S6EVE josephm

      ya, and who do you think the malisha dictater is. will the defence department define the people or the police if and up raiseing comes on gun control. its only one step from marshel law. take the peoples guns, make them hungrey because of food prices, tell me what you think will happen. get ready the fight for freedom is coming.

    • William

      I believe that the citizen should have parity in firepower with the non-military agencies of government and definitely with criminals. If assault weapons are taken away from law-abiding citizens, they must be taken from every criminal without exception. If it is suspected that there is even one criminal out there with an assault rifle, then they must be left in the hands of law-abiding citizens. At the same time, every police department must give up their assault weapons, because for what purpose would they need them if citizens and criminals did not have them. This does not apply to the military because they need whatever weaponry is needed to fight and win wars against aggressor nations that attack us, and our military must have at least parity with any such potential aggressor. AND, the military must never be used against civilians, otherwise the citizens would have no Second Amendment guaranteed advantage to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

    • C. Class

      It looks to me as if the Afghanis are doing just fine without drones. The Iraq Army got wacked, because they tried to stand up and fight tank against tank. They are doing OK now.

  • WatchDog

    Try to take my AR and or my AK and I'll hand your azz back to you. These guys are just itching for a fight and WE THE PEOPLE will do just that to you Obama and that includes NATO - WANT SOME COME GET SOME

    • gfr

      Steady on old chap. They monitor these boards - your name will go straight onto their "death list" if you make an overt threat.

    • rivahmitch

      I'm sure many of our names are already there. I was prepared to kill and die for freedom when I enlisted in the Marine Corps and went to Vietnam. I'm equally prepared today.

    • RangerRick

      Hoo Rah!!

  • liberaldisgust

    The biggest mistake i find in the argument about the second amendment is in it's ending ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed ...... it's the shall not be infringed part !

    • http://fingerlakesfreepress.wordpress.com/ SgPoyzer

      It is not a mistake in the wording, the mistake is in how tyrants attempt to twist it. "Shall not be infringed," is pretty clear and direct.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Edward-Diviney-Jr/1181300319 Edward Diviney Jr

    Are they really so stupid to believe that owners of guns they plan on banning will give them up? How stupid are these folks seriously? This is America and we will not give our guns up to any Communist,Fascist or whatever these folks truly are. Just how stupid are the Americans who put these fools in office? Sheesh this country has lost a lot of brain cells.

    • Raymond

      "Just how stupid are the Americans who put these fools in office?"

      Very stupid.

      Obama supporter explains why she supports him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8P-vib5n8&feature=related

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Maggard/100001104393126 Larry Maggard

      ...for the freebee's, cause hes black (haha), dont want to work,......how much foodstamps you want for your freedom?

    • Paul

      That had to be the most ignorant, moronic person I have ever watched on the tube.

    • Raymond

      She's a freeloader.

    • William

      She's an Obama voter. There has got to be something very wrong with a political candidate who attracts this kind of voter.

    • napensnake

      Nobody is that stupid. This must be satire.

  • http://fingerlakesfreepress.wordpress.com/ SgPoyzer

    Scalia is wrong!

  • ARMYOF 69

    If the tyrannical government has "full auto" guns, then WE THE PEOPLE, should have them , also .

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000381452745 Robert Wheatley

      "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic" means I can have anything any government has in case I ever need to defend myself from a government that has become an enemy of Americans.

    • Sam in NC

      Exactly. The Founding Fathers wouldn't expect us to use muskets and flintlock pistols against modern weapons technology, anymore than they would have used rocks and pitchforks against the muskets and flintlock pistols the British were using. It's only common sense. The original patriots would want us to be armed with ANY weapon, that was necessary to bring down a tyrannical Govt. !

    • Henry

      Scalia says that "keep and bear" wouldn't apply to cannons… but a number of the Founders kept PRIVATELY owned cannons. Maybe he isn't aware of this. Does anyone know if Scalia has ever pulled a trigger in his life?

    • Sam in NC

      I seriously doubt it, Henry.

    • danimal

      I have a cannon that we use at our pre 1840"s camp. We use it to blast candy out of for the kids. If they try to take it, I will shoot them with a load of tootsi rolls.I store it in the same room as my collection of "assorted" firearms, knives, and tomahawks

    • taz_2002

      I love it, thank you for the afternoon laugh.....What flavor would you be shooting with....

    • Al

      I need to know how you pack a candy load. That idea is great.

    • Sean Mclin

      I just need to know where to stand with my candy net so I don't have to scramble with the kids-my knees ain't what they used to be...banana taffys please

    • esq

      There you go!

    • BillW

      Therein lies the problem. All the gun pansies are people who never "touch" firearms. They fear them and the people who have them, even our police and military. They need to remember that WE are the Government, not just the elected drones and lawyers in office.

    • 1PierreMontagne1

      Their fear of weapons is predicated on the knowledge that if they push the envelope to far there is a lawful means to keep them in check.
      Odd isn't it that the same people who fear firearms also want to change the Constitution and force governmemnt intrusion into your every day life.

    • JibJab

      Does this apply to .44 mag,.454 casul or.50 cal hand cannons???

    • 1PierreMontagne1

      To keep and bear arms - is plural not singular and not limiting to two.
      As for size I choose to "Bear" my firearms on my wagon pulled by my horse.
      OR to be born on my trailer pulled by my truck.
      The number of founding fathers who owned cnnons attests to the forgoing views.
      Scalia is missing it or never considered that point.
      Clever and fair interpretations work more than just the way Liberals and Progressivbes want.

    • har82

      Define each word separately ,, or even together. And you will easily see and understand that - scalia - ,, walks on pretty thin ice with those comments.
      The problem is these days, is that lawyers and judges - make up their own - definitions of words...
      They really do think Americans are just to stupid to understand - simply written phrases and words - .

    • joeb

      If you go back to the common usage of the day, "Regulated" meant controlled. "A well regulated Militia" (Militia defined as "The Army in its entirety") would be one well controlled, such control necessary to keeping any State (nation) free. The way to control the Army was to have the people armed.

      In the Federalist Papers the discussion was had over whether or not there should be a standing Federal Army, and the conclusion of those who had recently fought a military occupation by the British was that it should be relatively small, both as a matter of expense, and to keep it from being misused to impose tyranny. The Federal Army would have to be large enough, however, to intervene if two State militias started fighting it out. (Recall that when the COnstitution was written, we were under the Articles of Confederation, and the several States were indeed Soverign States: they had their own armies.)

      The underlying conclusion however, was that the people, by virtue of numbers and their private arms could stop the tyrannical aspirations of all comers.

      The definitions of Militia and Regulated are taken from a British dictionary ca 1814 (King George III's son had taken over as regent, but the monarch was still alive.)

      All the verbal contortions people go through to apply "militia" to the population are unnecessary: the Founders meant for the people to have the means to control the standing Army with their private arms. Private merchant ships had canon, and later even flatboats on the Missouri had swivel guns, so private ownership of heavier weapons was not denied--although they were not cheap, and the cost limited their ownership.

    • esq

      Scalia is an Idiot!

    • OldProudArmedWhiteGuy

      The "Brown Bess" was the "assault weapon" of the late 1700's.
      The Brits wanted the "rifle" outlawed because it was so far superior to the military smooth-bores in use at the time.
      By the way, a "musket" is a military shouldered fired arm.

    • Michael Hudson

      Like this tyrannical

    • sovereigntyofone

      I agree, but I just don't have the room for a F-22 raptor, M1A1 Abrams tank, I guess I'd have to modify my garage to fit in a nuclear missle silo. (Just kidding ) I see your point.

    • http://www.facebook.com/voyager.LPADBBS John Wilson

      I sure would love to have a Harrier Jet. I would use it to fly down to the corner store and get bread. HaHa

    • apache6

      DITTO,Robert,I stand by my "OATH" to the "DEATH" !!

    • Big Al

      I totally agree with you ARMYOF69. The road of regulating and outright denial of what you can or cannot have is worn out. It only leads to eventual "attempt to confiscate" and a revolt in the making. All you have to do is look at all the countries with weapons bans and what is has brought upon it's citizens...high crime rates at the least or genocide at it's worst!!! All in the name of safety or peace?
      Si vis pacem, parabellum
      Semper Fi

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Reinhard-Schumann/644757548 Reinhard Schumann

      If the State cannot deny you the right to have some things, then why not get a tank?

    • Al

      Yes, why not? Tanks are completely legal to own. Very expensive to run.

    • dshevlin

      @Big Al - Everything is like this now and it has got to stop. One or two apples go bad and the whole tree gets burned down by the government. What the hell ever happened to punishing the one or two bad apples? Leave the tree alone it is not bothering anyone. Really sick of it! This direction is leading to our demise. One oil spill and now no one can drill, so we have no means to provide for ourselves because ONE or TWO guys fell asleep at the wheel. One guy drives drunk and kills someone and what happens, he gets off keeps his drivers license and the new law is close all bars down. One kid swallows an office toy and now no one is allowed to buy that office toy. There is always going to be an exception to the rule and so we must rebel the attempt to control. In the meantime pass me the vomit bag please! UGH.

    • taz_2002

      Amen to that...

    • Mark

      I agree!!! What the hell does the caliber have to do with it.The AK/M-16 shoots a 223/22CAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A 22 long rifle would work just fine for personal protection...ask Robert Kennedy's family!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Billy Hill

      CCI Stingers work great @ 1650 fps

    • DAY8293A

      HE TRIES TO SAY "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" MEANS ONLY IF YOU CAN HOLD THEM,,, IT DOES NOT SAY "KEEP AND HOLD" BEAR ARMS MEANS TO BEAR THEM IN YOUR HOME,,, THEY DID NOT "BEAR" THEIR ARMS EVERYWHERE THEY WENT... THEY OFTEN HUNG OVER THE FIRE PLACE... SAYING YOU HAVE TO HOLD IT WOULD MEAN YOU COULD BE LIMITED TO HOW MANY YOU COULD "HOLD" AT ONE TIME,,, THAT IS SCARY. IT COULD BE USED IN MANY WAYS, TO LIMIT HOW MANY YOU COULD HOLD, HOW BIG A CALIBER, HOW MUCH AMMO YOU COULD HOLD AT ONE TIME,,, HECK,,, THAT IS A SCARY WAY HE IS LOOKING AT INTERPRETING "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"...

    • http://www.facebook.com/bruce.lytle.1 Bruce Lytle

      I'd like to be able to afford "bearing" my cannon on an Abrams!

    • crumudgen

      When you can shoulder a howitzer, get back to us.

    • ratler

      an anti tank missile is hand carried.

    • johnmhoward9

      The Oklahoma and Trade Center bombings killed more people than all of the mass gun killings put together! If someone wants to kill people they will use whatever they please! It is the person who should be punished, NOT THE GUN!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/voyager.LPADBBS John Wilson

      Right, Check out the Bath Township School massacre in Michigan on May 18th 1927. The worst school massacre in the history of the United States with 38 kids killed, 2 teachers and 4 other adults plus 58 injured. Only 1 shot fired!!

    • sovereigntyofone

      Isn't it strange, if you look at other countries (in the middle east) that do not have the right to keep and bare arms, you see all sorts of RPG's, fully automatic AK-47's and the like. Here in the U.S. you can't own a fully automatic weapon. True, the middle east is in turmoil and government leaders are falling like domino's because of tyranny against their people. Is this what our government fears?

    • BillW

      Actually we can own full auto weapons. They just have it so screwed up with hoops and paperwork and fees that most people don't know about it or don't care to go through the process. This is the kind of quagmire they are trying to create for all of our firearms.
      I will not surrender my rights to the state. The state didn't give them to me and they have no right to take them away. If anyone wants to give their freedom away let them. Not this American

    • sovereigntyofone

      Just curious if you could get a fully automatic NOW with Eric Holder head of the the DOJ even IF you go through all the red tape and paper work. Probably be easier just to tell them you are a " cartel member " and they'll give you one.

    • taz_2002

      Your statement could not be more true.....

    • JibJab

      Get a FFL,then you can have one.

    • Independentrd

      FFL holders have to go through the same hassle to own a full auto firearm as anyone else.

    • ARMYOF69

      The answer to your question, is YES.

    • Stinger

      you can own a fully automatic weapon. Has to be approved and cost 200.00 fo rthe permit

    • har82

      I sure hope so lol. And weapons bans will not save them.

    • dshevlin

      @Armyof69 - Yea, especially because "WE THE PEOPLE" paid for them. This is all out of control. The government does not MAKE money - The government TAKES our money - that is their funding. We own it all, they own NOTHING! Why do we let them control us? WE pay them to enslave ourselves and we pay them to live better then we do. This is all wrong. This is the CHANGE that is needed.

    • OldProudArmedWhiteGuy

      In order for a "law" to actually BE LAW, it MUST (of necessity) apply equally to all.

      Those who "enforce" the Law, are not "above the Law", but are more bound by said "law" than anyone else.

    • har82

      I agree. Our Founding Fathers were not - static - in their thinking. They knew , as well as anyone times would change and advancements in arms would be made. Pretty hard to stop an armored vehicle with an AK lol.
      Grenades and rocket launchers work pretty well though :) .
      KEEP AND BEAR - in my book doesn't mean just physically able to carry lol.

      THAT THINKING ,, WOULD COMPLETELY SUBVERT THE REASON ,,, FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT. PERIOD .

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MJ2KA7K46X3IXO3JX7JFOS7PNY tazz_89103

      true but that wont happen, we are not even closely matched with them, what we have are #'s lots of them, thats what will give us the strength to win.. Second Amendment had to do with protecting one’s self, family, and
      property. It was closely tied to militia as well. While a firearm can
      be used to hunting and other things, that was not the provision outlined
      in the Second Amendment. In addition I would say that firearms are key
      to fending off tyrannical government.

    • esq

      If the government collects our weapons then they better not try to draft my kids!

    • Independentrd

      The biggest deterrent against a full auto firearm, is the cost of feeding it.

      Banning a firearm based on what it looks like is ridiculous. As the author said, if its pointed at you they basically all look alike: scary! a 22 stuck in your face is like looking into the end of a 55 gallon drum

  • TexRancher

    What will owners of AK-47s do if they are outlawed? Nothing!
    The 2nd amendment was included to protect against an abusive government!
    My 2nd amendment rights are not negotiable!

    • patriot2

      my sentiments exactly.our firearms are to keep a tyrannical government at bay.what I have in my peaceful persuit of happiness is no business of theirs,nor will I volunteer to turn them in.

    • Joel Carson

      Scalia is wrongly understanding the complete second amendment The founders were brilliant men when they decided to add " shall not be infringed " . Common sense used in correct understanding ,being that the whole purpose of the second amendment is to be able to augment a very small " standing " army incapable of withstanding a foreign invasion without assisstance from the states voluntary citizens militia that " voluntary militias arms had to keep up with advances in weaponry if it were to be able to defeat the " standing "army of a government trying to establish a dictatorship or monarchy . That is the purpose of "Th e right to bear arms shall not be infringed " . Obviously states can violate the meaning and infringe on the right but when they limit certain arms from public ownership they weaken their individual states rights and their ability to maintain state soveriegnty from the federal government . And put their constitution in jeopardy .

    • BD Katt

      You are partially correct,but heed the thoughts of the founding fathers..

      "The great object is that every man be armed.Everyone who is able may have a gun"--Patrick Henry

      "To disarm the people is the best & most effectual way to enslave them"--George Mason

      "Let your gun be your constant companion on your walks"--Thos Jefferson

      "To preserve liberty,it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms"--Richard Henry Lee

      "A free people ought not only too be armed,but they should have sufficient arms & ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them,which would include their own government"--Geo Washington

      "Democracy is two wolves & a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.Liberty is a well armed lamb"--Ben Franklin

      "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep & bear arms is,as a last resort,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"--Thos Jefferson

      "Our constitution was made for a moral & religious people.It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"--John Adams

    • Al

      Who got all of those AK47s that were dumped in America by the Chinese military about 20 years ago? They couldn't have all been acquired by individual consumers. There are some heavily armed groups or organizations out there somewhere. Are they waiting in the wings? This info was featured on mainstream media (CBS) several years ago.

    • Michaellaborde

      I would question anything CBS airs on Guns.

    • wkelly10103

      or on tv at all!

    • patriot2

      or anything else the media reports on they all lie

    • 9Spoon9

      Your entry sounds like it comes from the Brady Bunch.. You need to understand that the ONLY thing that prevents Uncle from ruling your every move is the 2nd. It is THE Keystone of Liberty itself!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Reinhard-Schumann/644757548 Reinhard Schumann

      Where in the 2nd Amenrdment does it say that citizens should have weapons to use against their own government? Doesn't it imply that men should have arms to protect the government against all enemies?
      What an attitude to have in a country that is the greatest Democracy in the world!

    • BillW

      First of all, this is not a democracy it is a republic. It was precisely government they were protecting against. English troops were try to disarm our newly forming country so they could dominate and tax us to death. We stopped them so we could dominate and tax ourselves to death.

    • gadfly32

      Read the declaration of Independence.

    • BD Katt

      Read the thoughts of the founding fathers in my post above in response to Joel Carson & be educated .It also helps to study the Constitution

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1254545548 Jim Greaves

    In answer to the Headline: grow some balls! This UNION of 50 states belongs to "the people", not to Obama or any international cabal of tyrants and despots. Certainly not to Turd Tenner and Jorge 'the jew' Soros. BTW, I support 100% the right of Israel - and any other nation - to exist, and defend itself against, the UN, and it horde of dictatorial morons. Obama needs to go back to Kenya, or the other place he's been associated, Indonesia. He can see how much they love him in those places, especially if he lowers his ego sufficiently to the level of the lowest peasant. And lives the life of same. Otherwise, how is he any different from the Gestapo, SS, KGB and Politburo of old???

    • Raymond

      Obama is part of the New World Order.

    • Susy

      So are most of the Rebpulicans in Congress, as well as the Democrats. Looks like the Supreme Court is also now. Two of them defected now.

    • Raymond

      The NWO in now in control.

    • Michaellaborde

      Obama is the pupet in the long line.

    • Rick

      Let's hope he's the last part of the new world order Raymond.

    • cwll85

      He is no different,In fact if reelected all of the Obama lovers can kiss this Country goodbye. And the second ammendment stays no matter the consequences.When are you socialist marxist communist Obama lovin people going to understand, Most of us love this Country enough to fight for it.Go to Kenya with boy king and dont come back.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZAPEUNLZOXHBAKKVE3CC3S6EVE josephm

      you are so right, to bad all the demos cant see the forest for the trees,lets start with the demos. guns see how far that gets ya.

    • Tony Brains

      Jim Greaves

      George Soros is NOT a Jew; he renounced that by his actions a long time ago. He is an un-Jew. When the revolution comes KKKers and Jews and all those in the middle will unite, automatic weapons in hand, to defeat
      the liberal bastards who want to control our lives, take our freedons.

    • Michaellaborde

      Sorrous is Greek.

    • patriot2

      he's a moron.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Dean-Cole/799874237 Robert Dean Cole

      Where did you get that idea? He was born in Budapest, Hungary and his family name was Swartz, not Soros. He changed it so as to appear to be non-Jewish; but, he was born a Jew.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/EQ4NKPCK73TK3SI7XJ7D7OAXBA duane a.

      George (Nazi Youth )Soro was in the Hilter youth army and went around with the gestopo collecting valuables from jewish families. He said so very proudly in a recorded interview.

    • BD Katt

      John Demanjuk,born in Poland,was stripped of US citizenship & deported for his being part of the nazi party.Why is Soros still here?