So the fact that the president gave himself the authority to send anyone to jail forever without a trial, a warrant, a lawyer, or any evidence whatsoever, does not hint at tyranny? Is the PATRIOT act not a hint at tyranny?

The threat of despotism does not go away, unless the government fears its citizenry.

@craig – What part about “shall not be infringed” is confusing? If you don’t like the second amendment, please right your congressman about changing it. We have a process for this. But please don’t try to get into the heads of founding fathers, magically placing them in the present state and speaking for them on their behalf. Its just plain silliness.

Our government certainly is not perfect, but we do need someone to make and enforce laws for the good of us all rather than encouraging everyone to act on intuition and fear, such as the NRA does.

Laws to enforce seat belts in autos help, speed limits help, drug laws help, street lights help, smoking and alcohol restrictions help. Unfortunately, laws permitting every man and women to pack a gun to protect themselves after making personal judgements whether they are about to be assaulted and need to fire their guns. None of the laws are perfect, but they all help us to avoid having a chaotic nation where everyone does as he/she wishes in order to protect themselves. The constitution has built in protection for the government as well as for individuals. Everyone gives up individual freedoms for the general good. What the hell is wrong with that?

This mysterious knowledge the NRA claims to have concerning the meaning of the Second Amendment is like one religion claiming to know the true meaning of the scriptures, or claiming to know which is the true God. The NRA is BSing their members for financial gain and their members are gullible, fearful, and usually uneducated citizens. Our founding fathers, if presented with the issues we now face, would think it ridiculous that the public should arm and rebel against its own government. The constitution was adopted to preserve the nation not to destroy it. Because a few nuts think their children may have to rebel against their own government some time in the distant future is not reason to arm every citizen today. It is a ridiculous concept which our founders could not have imagined. Where does the NRA draw the line? Why stop at semiautomatic weapons and large ammo clips? Why not include rocket launchers, grenades, poison gas and chemical and thermonuclear weapons?

Thanks for telling me what I “need.” Gotta love people who know what is best for you—especially politicians and the liberal elite. I recently read an article in UPI where Sen. Murphy of CT was quoted as saying, “You don’t need an assault weapon to kill a deer, you don’t need an assault weapon to do target practice.” In my opinion, he missed the point completely of liberty and the fact that legislation that restricts assault weapons, while emotionally satisfying, will do little to reduce the gun crimes that are perpetrated upon innocent victims by violent criminals. Rather, it will further restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while criminals continue to acquire their weapons of choice through already illegal channels. But let us, for a moment, imagine a world where we take your position of “need” to it’s logical conclusion using a couple of similar scenarios.

According to the CDC, “…more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined” (443,000 annually). Given these horrifying statistics, why is there no proposed ban from Congress on cigarettes? Using the same logic that is used on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, it is clear that such chemicals “…are not needed…” . At the very least, can’t we agree that a restriction in the length of “high capacity” cigarettes is in order?

Similarly, according to the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, “…in 2010, 10,530 people died in crashes that were linked to speeding.” Given that the top speed limits in most states are 70 mph, why is there no proposed ban on cars that can exceed 70 mph? Shouldn’t we be proposing the immediate elimination of new vehicles that can exceed this limit? Surely we can agree that a Corvette, (with a top speed of 190 mph), “…is not needed…” for daily commuting or recreational driving! Perhaps a ban on these high speed vehicles can be expanded to all law-abiding owners of vehicles that have the potential to exceed these limits? We could ensure compliance by requiring our citizens to install governors (no pun intended) on their cars that must be registered and inspected annually. Think of the lives that could be saved!

Or perhaps Congress would like to restrict the intake of our sugar which, according the journal of Nature, can contribute to as many as 35 million deaths worldwide each year! Next we could restrict our intake of coffee. It is apparent to me that no one really “needs” a $4 soy mocha latte with Madagascar cinnamon when a simple cup of Joe is enough!

The obvious argument here is not whether or not such excesses of cars, cigarettes, sugar or guns are needed. We can probably all agree that they are, in fact, not needed at all. The point, however, is that when we start allowing our government bodies to restrict our lives through legislation based on what they (or their constituents) believe is needed for us, we erode the liberties of all through the good intentions of protecting a few. In short, our government should not be dictating to law-abiding citizens what they “need.”

Trust me, I don’t need their advice on what I “need.”

All you people who are lumping Napolitano in with the idiots at fox news like O’Reilly really are uninformed morons. He is a libertarian watch this video before you criticize him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sNWbiAMf80

The stoopid sheep who believe this crap are scarier than any imagined threats from that “evile librul mooslin in the White House.”

If they were ever faced with a real life threat of any kind they would first empty their bowels and bladder, and then be so freaked out they’d probably end up shooting themselves in the foot.

Over on Fox Nation, Fox News viewers are applauding NBC for being named the media sponsor of SHOT 2013. Talking about how it’s “a rare step in the right direction.”

Funny how everyone on there is ignoring that Fox and Newscorp US, for all their pro-gun talk… are the only two companies that didn’t put in a bid. In fact, comments pointing that out have an average lifespan of 1 minute.

I know that i needed an assault rifle for the creature lurking under my bunk bed, even though it always stayed just out of sight……..jeez judge, i don’t believe in the boogeyman anymore.

Hey gun owners, do you worry about other gun owners with more fire power who disagree with your political philosophy? Do you believe in they have the same right as you when it comes to rebellion against authority?

nopalitano knows that fear sells in neoconnuttia. All it takes is to tell stupid sheep that the e-vile libruls want to take their pacifiers…er…guns away, throw in bowel releasing words like “executive order”, “sharia law”, “moooooslin” and “libruls”. This is what works for FoxGOPTV.

Shapiro sez
US History is replete with paranoid idiots like me. I’d buy tactical nukes if I could get ’em! Got any leads?!!!