Yes Al. You are exactly right! I'm glad that other's see the same things that I do.

I don't see many smiling faces in the crowd; haven't heard much about his visit but I hope they told him like it is, like in this blog......don't think he will be visiting here again soon.

They probably aren't smiling because they're behind him and see can his teleprompter and thinking "what a dope, everything I've heard about this guy and his teleprompter is true."

If you perceive your view to be a majority one - then please - form a third Party and become President...

Actually Rob, starting a third party would be nearly impossible considering the republicans and democrats have monopolized the political world. Anyone who disagrees with that is ignorant, they don't even let a 3rd party in the debates.

I lean more to the right but our system is so broken I don't think its fixable.

"The only way to protect kids while at school" is to arm trained teachers. Only the Principal would know who is carrying. The teachers would receive special pay and training and would be voluntary. Even if no teachers carry, the bad guy would not know that. Having an armed guard/police officer walking the halls? Big deal. That's target one. And all one has to do is look for the officer to walk the other way then get in. Face it. There are soft targets all over this country. Schools, shopping malls, grocery stores, coffee shops. Guns are not going to disappear, which is good. Guns guarantee our sovergnty. Conceal and carry is the best defense next to sharing mental health reports with the FBI who administers the national background check of gun purchases.

@ Mike. "But then the people who know the least usually are the ones who think they know the most - like our very own lawmakers."
EXACTLY. Very well said.

Why? Because you want our country to collapse? Because you *want* anarchy to prevail? What an asinine comment.

Who said anything about anarchy? Joshua needs a nap!

@Mark... I don't ever want to be able to say I told you so. Funny too. The blathering in rags like the Strib, the consistent tearing away at our Constitution... These people if they ever get their way by seeing the 2nd Amendment disappear into the sunset or severely restricted, the next thing to fall will be the 1st Amendment. Then we'll get to say "I told you so." Guns are not this countries downfall. It's lack of objectivity by the press and writing stories, rather than reporting them.

That link leads to a Page Not Found on Facebook - what's up with that?

This is so not a Republican versus Democrat issue, and your attempt to cast it in that light does a disservice to all. The NRA claims a stake in this matter, and their position mirrors the views of many, but they are certainly not the spokesperson for all gun owners. There are way more "normal" people who worry about government overreach than Obama and his cronies would like to believe.

Sorry - but there is no government plot to take away guns no matter how many pictures you post...

"Sorry - but there is no government plot to take away guns no matter how many pictures you post..."

Read the proposed legislation. My ten year old could figure out this is meant to disarm the citizenry.

It's a pretty ballsy move on the part of the Dems. The one thing I have to give the Democrats credit for is when they have the ball they run with it. The Republicans can't seem to keep from fumbling and being intercepted before even getting a first down. Dayton and company are intent on steam-rolling the opposition while they have their window. However, if they pass any of these gun grab bills, they may be short timers. Minnesotans may lean left, but they still like their guns.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0241.0.html&session=ls88

What these seemingly ignorant lawmakers don't tell you is "assault" weapons only look scary. They function like any other semi-automatic weapon. They most likely are not ignorant of that fact however, which makes their intent questionable and frightening.

You can say there's no government plot to take away guns, but they're clearly doing so if this legislation passes.

Thank you Marissa. I'll be posting the link on my page as well as your post above.

"Let me know who's going to allow the agency to come in and have full access to gun safes"

Ever heard the phrase, "they can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands"?

Before the Supreme Court became an extension of the Executive Branch, I would have hoped this law passed because it is so egregiously unconstitutional it would have been struck down. Not so sure any more.

It is refreshing to hear sheriffs like Robin Cole tell Obama they won't enforce any unconstitutional laws. I wonder how many in the law enforcement community will in effect nullify the law by refusing to go into people's homes and blatantly infringing on people's natural God-given rights? There will be a few, but most will do what they're hired to do. Not protect and serve, but enforce the law regardless of what their conscience tells them. Refer to the link in my former post.

Hopefully, Minnesotans will wake up to this deplorable sham and flood the Capitol phone system, however it's doubtful the sheep are even paying attention. They're comfortably grazing on the handouts from their masters.

Ken, you are the one operating under delusion. First off. Who in here called teachers lazy? You liberals LOVE to point fingers and put words in peoples mouths. Nice try.
Next, you cite one lunatic in Alabama that could hold off a drone or tank or bomber. What a total assinine comment. You need a lesson in the Constitution and the Second Amendment. I get it Ken. You hate guns. That's fine. But you have NO clue what you are blathering about. The main problem is Dr. patient confidentiality. Mental health records are not released to law enforcement, including the FBI, who is in charge of nationwide background checks. The current system allows for "honesty" in completing the questionaire when purchasing a firearm. So as usual, you are just another misinformed liberal who is putting words in peoples mouths, pointing fingers, and speaking without true knowledge of the facts. Turn off CNN and MSNBC there Ken and do some research instead of being a parrot for Maddow, O'Brien, Schultz, Press and Morgan.

Says the union slob who believes that government exists for altruistic purposes. If you think that the bulk of the military is going to "obey" Obama if/when the time comes to attack its own citizens, you are a bigger fool than you let on.

Al, it's nice to see that you treat everyone who disagrees with your position the same way. I'm glad the contempt is not just for me.

I have read here in the past that there was some survey of the military on this issue. Does anyone know where I can see that survey, or who did it, or what it was called? Thanks.

You are right Susan - I am insulting Ken. I'm doing it because the Patch apparently seems fit to allow leftists to post whatever derisively and inappropriate attack they want to without being challenged. Consider this my "Patch" test.

Al, I don't want to pick a fight here and won't, but I think you still may be missing the point. You can label people's COMMENTS and WORDS as wrong, stupid, ignorant, etc., but not the individual unless they are a public figure. I have been told that each editor can use their own discretion. After that shooting at the temple is Wisconsin I followed a link to their local Patch....if you think this stuff is bad, you should see what is allowed in southern Wisconsin.

Ken, when I started on Patch over a year ago I was posting things similar to you. I've found that you will be taken more seriously and not start so many fights that bring people off topic if you refrain from the personal attacks. Question and challenge people's ideas and positions but the name calling is not helpful and you really do receive what you put out there. Don't start it and it usually won't turn into a free-for-all of insult one upmanship. Just some advice from someone who's been there, but please feel free to ignore.

Susan

I do understand the point you've been making all along. I do consider calling someone's points ignorant, naive or paranoid to be a personal attack, after all, the message is coming from that persons' mind - which is (unless they are being sarcastic or lying) 100% reflective of that person's being. To say otherwise would be a total disconnect. If you use inflammatory language (and sometimes I do) you can expect to get lots of arrows coming your way. If you attack a person directly - you will definitely get arrows coming your way. if you attack a persons' belief system (their choice of words reflecting it) - you will also get them.

I understand what you are saying, Al, but I think you may misunderstand just a bit. So many people get offended at the "ignorant" word because they misunderstand its meaning.

Ignorant is defined as: "Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular."

So one can certainly be ignorant about a subject in which they speak/write, without being a stupid or ignorant person. It's not even close to the same thing. If you go back to that last thread, you will see that I said the comments were ignorant and misinformed. This is only a reflection of the authors’ lack of knowledge on the subject when coming to their negative and inflammatory conclusions about the welfare system.

Some may think ignorant is an ugly word, but if it is an accurate description of a comment, there is nothing ugly about it, it’s just a description.

"...the message is coming from that persons' mind - which is (unless they are being sarcastic or lying) 100% reflective of that person's being." Here, I must strongly disagree. You can not measure the person because they are uninformed on a particular subject. This does not mean they are a bad or stupid person, it just means they are uninformed about that subject, period. And this goes for naive and paranoid, as well.

Susan

DIsagree with you. The perception of ignorance, naivete, paranoia etc is a matter of a persons opinion. The person saying it may be much much more aware of other perspectives and historical background than you think. By saying a comment is ignorant, naive or paranoid is to judge someone's comments based on your belief system or what you think you know about they are saying. .

I find many of your comments to be ignorant or naive as well -- but you are entitled to your opinion and not be belittled by me saying that your comments are as such.

That is the rationale for me calling you out on your responses to others.

Ok, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, Al. You simply cannot judge a person, or who they are as a person, by what they type on one subject. To do so is an unfair and most likely inaccurate judgement.

BTW, I've admitted and acknowledged that I have been naive on certain subjects. It's not an insult, it means that I may not understand all the factors involved because of a lack of actual experience. It doesn't however, make me a naive person.

It is dangerous and an insult to our First Amendment rights to judge people simply by what they say or write. People can say some really stupid things, this does not mean that they are stupid people, it might just mean that they weren't thinking before they spoke, or that they were uninfomed about what they spoke about.

One other thing, I really don't mind that you call me out, just know that I usually mirror the attitude and insults that I get. I have been working to tone down some of the rhetoric, but I won't sit idly by as someone slams me for something that they themselves do. Call me out or don't, it really makes no difference, but I will call a hypocrite a hypocrite.

Why have any laws at all? They clearly haven't stopped crime. Logic FAIL...

Another comment worthy of derision. Funny, you just can't quit name calling, can you Ken? Yep, let's get rid of all laws. Totally asinine. The gun laws on the books aren't even enforced Ken. That's one of the problems. The other problem is what I cited earlier regarding Doctor/patient confidentiality. Many in law enforcement have plead with their legislators etc etc to no avail to make mentally deranged people show up in the contact info. The cops I know didn't even care what the malady was, just if they were imbalanced. So do you know what cops train to do now? View everyone as mentally unbalanced until they can ascertain otherwise. Laws work when enforced Ken. Epic FAIL on your rant.

Ken wrote: "Why have any laws at all? They clearly haven't stopped crime."

"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion
- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing
- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors
- when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you
- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice
- you may know that your society is doomed."

~ Ayn Rand

I know you're a lib from other posts. Al must know your union affiliation from another of you deep posts. You probably went off on him like you have on me and self identified. But, never mind that. Everyone please call your Reps and Senators and tell them that you vote and the lunacy must end. No 40 cent a gallon tax increase, no more idiotic, Constitution violating gun laws. Get down to business and pass real legislation. Tax reform, confidential information sharing regarding mentally incompetent, violent people. Speaking of, I wonder what the police think of all the illegals packing unregistered firearms in the sanctuary cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Coleman has blood on his hands from the illegal who ran over the high school student. That guy shouldn't even be here. And no drivers license either. Hmmm, Ken. Care to weigh in? BTW. Illegals carrying firearms in those cities, guess what? INS is notified and rarely do they pick them up. So unless there is a felony warrant (not a misdemeanor warrant) they are freed the following morning. Ummm, Ken, where does an individual who is in this country illegally in the first place get a firearm?

WOW!!! Do you ever read what you write? Do you realize how silly you look taking a decent conversation down to this level? Fortunately, I don't engage in the stuff you exhibited above. This by the way is why liberals don't carry a lot of weight with Conservatives. It's childish comments like yours above that turn thoughtful dialogue into a mess of self propelled landfill. Later Ken. It's been fun... sorta.

Susan, very thoughtful comment. Now, I'm going to guess on this one, but I am thinking you have never tried to purchase a firearm. Please attempt to do so. It will shed a lot of light on some of the misconceptions out there.
First, dealers/gun stores do not approve the sale. They simply sell the gun. The dealer has to call the FBI and report the serial number, drivers license or other valid ID used, name of the purchaser, type of permit allowed to purchase. This is after a lengthy background check. In MN a license is granted by the police dept or Sheriff after the background check is filled out. This usually takes two weeks. A card is issued that is good for one year. If you are a conceal carry permit holder, the same background check is done. Then another when the class for c/c is completed and a fee is paid. Your c/c license is a permit to purchase for 5 years. Then when you want to purchase a firearm, every time you purchase one, you have to fill out a form that asks about substance abuse, felonies, mental health etc. That form is supposed to be the final stopgap. But one can lie. Like I said above, you can be on meds fpr schizophrenia (sp) and answer "no" to the mental health questions. THAT'S the problem. Due to Dr/Patient confidentiality, that persons history is not shared with law enforcement. THAT has to stop. All the Dr. has to do is notify the BATF or FBI saying that person has a mental health issue. Then when the time to purchase comes, the person is denied.

Honestly, I've been considering it for a while. While I was growing up my dad had several guns and I was taught respect for the weapons and how to shoot them...right off our deck. We had some land and times were much different 30-35 years ago.

I really believe that the privacy issue can be easily addressed and I am disappointed in our leaders on the left who are still using this as a reason. When I started debating about guns here on Patch I was very pro gun regulations and restrictions. Thanks to some patient people (E.L. was the first, CB, and M also among them), my opinion has been changed. You may have read my comment near the bottom to Simon. This is now my position on gun legislation. I can't stand firmly with the freedom argument in that we do need to have some common sense guidelines to help keep the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, but I am also not for banning guns. As usual, I am somewhere in the middle.

More on Ms. Rand, for the curious:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html

Ken, since you're apparently a card-carrying Marxist pointing this out is probably futile but I'll post it nonetheless.

http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare/

An excerpt from the article:
"Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it."

I like Rand and other like-minded freedom lovers am an avowed opponent of the Ponzi schemes known as Social Security and Medicare. However, since well over one hundred thousand dollars of my hard earned income has been confiscated from me by the government you are so beholden to, I will take every benefit I'm entitled to when the time comes. That hardly makes me a hypocrite, I'm simply looking for a return on my investment.

"A Library of Congress survey of the most influential books on American readers, "Atlas Shrugged" ranked second only to the Bible. Rand's influence is encyclopedic ranging from Alan Greenspan to Paul "I grew up on Ayn Rand" Ryan".

Seems a lot of important people have been influenced by Rand's philosophy. Does that prove they don't know what they're talking about as well?

"You see, Susan, this is why one can't have an actual debate with these people."

Actually, we've been carrying on actual debates here for a long time. If you click on the names of many of those posting, you'll find thousands of posts where the debate is relatively civil and sometimes intelligent. What in your mind is "real" debate?

So if you're not a Marxist, how would you define yourself? Sorry if I mischaracterized you; after reading your posts that's the only conclusion I could reasonably draw.

I called Karin Housley and Bob Dettmer and they are both voting against. Whether that will do any good or not is another question. Hopefully some of the outstate Dem's will see this gun-grab for what it is and vote with them.

I also called Alice Hausman's and Michael Paymar's offices but they were too busy trashing the second, fourth and various other amendments to talk to me. Their staffers did thank me profusely for calling though.

I emailed Kathy Lohmer on this too Markus, since she's on the committee hearing the gun control bills this week.
I think my email got kicked into the "canned response" pile, but I plan on talking with her later this week, so I'll get more reaction soon.
Here's what the message I got back said:
"Thank you for contacting me regarding the upcoming votes in public safety regarding gun control. I ran for this office to represent the people of my district with the principles of individual liberty and limited government. The second amendment to our US constitution assures our rights as private citizens to keep and bear arms for many reasons. I took an oath to uphold the constitution and I take this very seriously. I will never vote to limit the rights of citizens which are part of our constitution."

Every male US citizen between the ages of 17-43 belongs to the militia. Some also belong to the National Guard.

Exactly Carbon Bigfoot. One does not need to be in the National Guard, Army nor any other "organized" service to be a part of a militia. All one needs to be is ready to defend the country when there is a call to arms. This whole topic is evidence on the lack of knowledge of our countries history, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Many apparently want to put their trust and faith in the government to take care of them. Stunning...

"All one needs to be is ready to defend the country when there is a call to arms."

I thought the second amendment was about defending ourselves against our own tyrannical government. Just teasing you, Rick.

Susan - You just perfectly exposed the liberal mind. Thank you.
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EQUAL COUNTRY

Touche, Connor. Apparently you missed the part where I said I was teasing...

Simon, I point this out only because it was pointed out to me. When the amendment was written "well regulated" would have meant "well trained". I agree with your point and most of your comment and I do advocate for the requirement of training for each gun (range and laws) for anyone who wants to own a gun. As you pointed out, banning will only cause a black market and we know what happens then. Making sure people are not disqualified due to a criminal record and/or a mental illness that would be deemed dangerous, and the requirements of training are what our government should be doing, not trying to ban .

Susan, excellent point re. training. I've had the pleasure of training quite a few people on proper use and technique of owning, possessing and shooting firearms. Safety is paramount. I may go overboard, but before I even allow someone to pull the trigger, on that particular firearm, I will field strip it, explain the inner workings, the safety, accidental discharge, on and on. It absolutely sickens me when an innocent loses their life to an "accidental discharge." I'm also appalled at the marketing of some of the stuff I see as of late. Scantily clad women advertising guns (Kahr and Kel-Tec and EAA come to mind) and these "zombie bullets" etc are a joke. This is what pi**es me off about the industry. Firearms are serious business and need to be treated as such. Mental health flags in the FBI's database should be a prerequisite. But good training must also go in hand with responsible ownership. This is coming from a life member of the NRA, Conceal/Carry permit holder, and firearms trainer.

Thanks, Rick, and I appreciate an NRA member stating that training is very important. Do you agree that training should be mandatory for gun ownership?

Note; above I wrote "Making sure people are NOT disqualified". It should read "Making sure people are disqualified..."

You're welcome Susan. What I advocate regarding training is that particular firearm should be familiarized to the shooter. I personally have a verbal list I go through with someone who has never fired a gun. Then after that comes the operational portion, then the shooting portion. I do not advocate "formal" training. I firmly believe when the gvmt gets involved in something, it ends up a mess. What I do advocate is personal responsibility of the owner. This may sound odd, but ordering or requiring someone to have training will make them no more responsible, and that's the rub. Every state in the country has an NRA affiliate. The NRA often times links with other groups, such as the Boy Scouts where the youngsters are taught about the importance etc of firearm safety before they even think of going to the range. Many counties have shooting clubs. Most ranges offer formal hands on training. The sporting goods stores can recommend training courses. Unfortunately, the NRA has been turned into the bogeyman regarding firearms and ownership. I encourage everyone to visit their website and view the training section because aside from advocacy, they are front and center about responsibility of ownership.
I also encourage everyone to get a conceal/carry license. Because one has the license does not mean one has to carry. What it does do is sends a message to our elected officials that c/c holders are numerous, have gone through the checks, and firmly believe in the Second Amendment.

Simon, what I would personally advocate and where I don't think there would be a conflict of interest, is requiring a Dr. to notify the FBI's division that does the background checks of a mental health issue. The FBI does not need to know what the issue is, just that that person is deemed mentally unfit to own a firearm. Simply put, Mr X. walks into a store to purchase. He submits his social security number, the store calls the FBI. The FBI runs the background check and next to "mental health restriction" the box is checked. The background check is stopped, the store is told "background check failed." No reason given, just "background check failed." The store then tells Mr. X "I'm sorry, the FBI has denied your purchase request. If the person has a fit, the store owner tells Mr X they have no idea why, they just tell us, denied purchase. And trust me, the folks in the stores are very well trained in how to deal with a hostile customer. And face it. Is anyone really going to start s**t in a gun store?

Rick, the problem I have with an FBI database of mentally unstable people is the subjectiveness of those who are doing the labelling. Doctors, particularly mental health doctors, have a great financial stake in creating lifelong customers, and overdiagnosis, medication and treatment are rampant throughout the industry. I would surmise that eventually anyone who sees a shrink is going to automatically be on that FBI list. Not to mention, whatever happened to doctor/patient confidentiality? Unfortunately, unstable mental conditions are too subjective to be predetermined until destructive behaviors are demonstrated. Thinking about destructive behavior is normal, I mean, who doesn't fantasize a little about running that jerk off the road who drives like an idiot? But you mention that to a doctor, and you are going to get a label and end up on a database that you probably don't deserve.

Simon, you make an excellent point. So how would someone with a mental disorder be flagged? Three Doctor's majority. It's a tough nut (pardon the pun) to crack. But taking the other route, banning or ordering law abiding citizens to hand over their personal property is not the answer. And in all honesty, I see our civilization degrading faster than a corn field under attack by locusts. The latest Stallone movie... Bullet to the Head. There has to be a modicum of discretion across the spectrum. Gun owners have been vilified for too long. It's the kooks, video games that desensitize, movies and our culture that is causing this.

Gary. Two ways a citizen can purchase (minus FFL etc) is to obtain a one year permit after the paperwork has cleared your local police department or county sheriff, just depends on where you live. The other is filling out the same paperwork, taking a conceal carry class, submitting proof of completion of the class and your license fee to the county sheriff and then when you receive your license that is good for 5 years to purchase. You then go to the store to purchase, fill out the background questionnaire, give it to the clerk who calls the FBI and gives them the vendor number, purchasers name, social security number, mode of identification and permit. Then approval or denial is done over the phone from the FBI.
Gary, very dangerous to assume. I know what I'm talking about. I described this above, but did it again for your benefit. Regards, Rick.

oh no....its the dem way to vote "to see whats in it"....

Lance, if you were referring to me, you're making a good point and it is a point taken. I've already stated my position on guns and what I see as our leader's overreach at the federal and state levels. I'm sure it is somehow wrong in some people's eyes, but that's okay. This should be about discussion, perssuasion, and debate regarding the issues, not about telling everyone what they are doing is wrong - I simply hoped that Ken would get a better understanding of how Patch might be a little different from some of the other online debates that he has participated in. My other "debate" is a little differnt as I have been a target for a while and I'm tired of it.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious...this is meant to be sincere, not sarcastic.

Wow!

Good information, Jim, thanks.

Excellent synopsis of the bill Jim. Thank You! My belief is this. Liberals have found that they can ask for Mars and get the moon. The real intent in the first place was the moon. Hence, real intent here is restrictive gun legislation. If the current H.R. is only partially adopted, they win. This Resolution must be 100% totally defeated.

Jim, it doesn't matter to them whether they have firearms knowledge or not. Last week during the hearings at the capitol, when pro-freedom people flooded the building, a few weapons were brought in and a presentation was done for the purpose of educating the legislators. Many of the DFL legislators walked out shortly after the presentation began, with no interest in gaining any knowledge.

For the DFL, this is all that matters to them: Guns are bad, so people who have guns are bad, so any knowledge of guns is useless to anyone who is good. It goes no further than that. It's classic base-level thinking.

The DFL legislators should study the founding of this country. Confiscation of guns and taxes sparked a revolt that overthrew the greatest military power in the world. They should also study the meaning of the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that law you describe, Jim, is not infringement, then nothing is.

I would like to venture an opinion on this. The Act you cite is just that: An Act. Given the date of the Act, it should be noted that it was undertaken and signed into effect *AFTER* the Revolutionary War, those that signed the Act (whose names are curiously missing on the reproduction website you cited) presumably had intimate knowledge of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and, if attitudes and beliefs were of sufficient number and intensity, an effort would have been successfully made to call a Constitutional Convention to modify the 2nd Amendment. It would appear that this did not happen.

Acts are effected, modified, superseded, dropped and outlawed frequently. The Act you cite goes so far as to specify the type of arms to be used; no one seriously expects anyone else to march into battle with these same arms today. This particular Act had a built-in expiration: "Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer."

The overall impression I have of this Act is as a consolidation of power under the Executive Office. The problem with citing an Act which would appear to clarify a Constitutional Amendment lies in exactly this impression. It says nothing of the Chief Executive's duty to keep and abide the Oath of Office; to uphold the Constitution.

As an addendum to my earlier response to your post, I would also like to raise the issue of what the Constitution, in its entirety, was originally designed to do, and does. It codifies individual human rights, as the framers of that day understood them. Self-defense was recognized as a part of the inalienable rights bestowed by the Creator. It sets parameters for how government was to operate, making sure to yield to the right of the individual in the individual's home, personal effects, political speech (and by extension, associations), and more. The 9th and 10th Amendments are, in my opinion, attempts to make this clear to those seeking to expand government's power and reach into daily affairs. The bills being heard in the Minnesota House and Senate, with one exception, far exceed the power granted them by the Minnesota State Constitution, as well as the U.S. Constitution, and not only seek to withhold a viable means of self-protection from the law-abiding, but further seek to criminalize them, subject them to unreasonable searches without due process, subject them to confiscation without remuneration, impose fines and sanctions for enjoying the human right to self-defense. I'm not sure, but that makes for what's called a "bill of attainder" which clearly violates the law of the land, and a violation of the Oath of Office for those who seek to implement it.

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback, Marc.

Just to be clear, I read about this when reading some other articles in reference to gun laws and the second amendment. I Googled it and this was the first link that came up. After searching for about one more second, I found the Wiki article which does give a little more background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Hitler did take away guns from people that opposed him. Obama is trying to do the same thing now. The only problem is that those pesky representatives of the people, know as Congress, are getting in his way again. That is why, during his State of the Union Address he said that if Congress won't act, he would through executive action.

Mr. Obama believes that he knows what's best for all of us, so if we're refusing to go along with him, it's because we're either stupid or bad, so it's just better for everyone if we give him the reigns and let him dictate from the White House through executive action. His speech was a disgusting assault on freedom. He is undoing the American Revolution.

Obama is trying to take away ALL of the guns? Every single gun?

Where can I find details on this proposal?

Nick, you are making some unjustified claims.

As I mentioned above, I think the president and our state leaders have overreached on this entire issue, but all of our presidents have used executive orders and President Obama is not even close to being on the list of the top ten of those presidents who used it most.

Of-course Congress is there to balance the executive branch, but they weren't "balancing it" they were blocking it. They have done it over and over, ad nauseum, and in ways that have not been done before. Why do you think that their approval rating is so darn low?...even with Republicans! Sometimes (most often) when one faces constant obstruction, one will find a way around the obstruction. It has happened since George Washington, and just because you don't like this particular agenda does not mean that we will soon be under the rule of a king and/or that the man thinks you are bad or stupid.

Believe me, I think it would be wrong to ban these guns, but just to be clear, the second amendment does not say "whatever arms you want", it says "keep and bear arm, shall not be infringed". If you have any argument at all, it's with the background check, and most of the country will fight you on that one...according to polls anyway.

For your review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

Jim, I'm not sure I understand. Did you mean the 18th post from the top? That's a Facebook link that doesn't work.