If this nation should ever become a Theocratic Facist state, I would be all the more in favor of the Second Amendment.

What about you?

You'd be for the Second Amendment if a cute little bunny rabbit crossed your path.

I don't know, some of those rabbits can be pretty fierce.

I don't actually want to take their guns, I would, however, like to throw them in jail for reselling their guns to gang members, Mexican drug cartels, and terrorists.

Not that it matters, because although the majority of gun-owners are responsible and in favor of responsible gun regulation, they aren't the ones in control of the NRA. Gun manufacturers are the ones holding all the influence there.

"Clinging to our guns and bibles."

"First we shoot them, then we justify their murder."

Though I am in support of the second amendment (when responsibly regulated), I do think that anyone who is dumb enough to think banning assault weapons is in any way an infringement on their constitutional rights is someone who should not have a gun.

I'm not saying I have the right to take it from them, I'm just saying I think they're a danger to themselves and others.

It's just interesting that these people only focus on guns, they seem fine about the government regulating people in regards to bombs, flame throwers, cannons, and all other kinds of deadly weapons. It's almost as if they recognize that these things are dangerous and they realize that the state has a role in restricting their availability.

(I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here, but I've actually heard of people who wanted to ban concealed knives, "because they're dangerous!" but at the same time wanted concealed carry for handguns.)

But hey, I'm just a godless liberal heathen, what do I know? Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get my crossbow, I don't like the way that bunny rabbit is looking at me.

I got nothing against rabbits, but i don't particularly like cyotes. One attacked my dog the other day.

I also would like to see people thrown in jail for buying guns and selling them to drug dalers and cartels. In fact there are already laws on the books regarding this. Unfortunately, and this may be a surprise, Drug Dealers and Cartels will actually break the law in hopes of getting guns.

I believe you could ban guns altogether and these people would still find a way to get them. There are some irresponsible gun owners out there, but there are many times more irresponsible drivers out there. If your worried about loss of life then Make the driving age 25.

Guns aren't my only issue. For the record I'm a libertarian. Cannons aren't exactly illegal my uncle owns one.

(I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here, but I've actually heard of people who wanted to ban concealed knives, "because they're dangerous!" but at the same time wanted concealed carry for handguns.) - REALLY?-

I've heard of all sorts of ridiculous things in my life, but I don't generally lend credence to such nonsense and neither should you. Start thinking for yourself and you'll begin to filter out things like this.

Excuse me, I do think for myself, I'll thank you not to float veiled insults.

I didn't insult you, I respected your point of view and expressed myself with a fair dose of humor to boot.

Your reckless drivers analogy is too full of holes to get into, I'm just going to skip over that and get to the point. Gun regulation nationwide is insufficient. Embarrassingly so. There is no way to eliminate illegal sales of guns, but where we are is nowhere near where we could be in terms of technology and regulation. All, I might add, without endangering the freedoms of responsible gun owners. I'm aware we cannot eliminate illegal gun trafficking, but compared to what we are capable of doing, we're not trying nearly hard enough.

The NRA, (and several disturbed individuals,) lobby against responsible gun control laws, without regard to their scope or intent. This is what I was arguing against.

I know several libertarians who are perfectly fine with government regulation as long as it is responsible, effective and limited to the bare minimum required to ensure the safety and stability of society. This is not about libertarianism, this is about corruption. This is about a special interest preventing the development and implementation of common sense practical methods for restricting improper sale and manufacture of dangerous weapons. This is about radical conservatives pandering to a base by rallying for "clinging to guns and bibles."

I pulled the example of cannons off the top of my head, but I was trying to reference the vast array of devices that can be considered "arms" constitutionally, but that are restricted by the federal government. And no, the knives example was not a joke, this was a real conservative, really expressing the opinion that concealed knives should be restricted and concealed handguns shouldn't.

Such people really exist, and they vote. I'll give you a moment to shudder.

It gets frustrating sometimes arguing about policy, but I err on the side of freedom, I know the sane and tolerant among us can come together to make policy that supports our constitutional rights, but protects us from criminal neglect and misuse at the same time. It will just take compromise.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have rabbit meat to braise.

Any comments on my actual argument about how the the Second Amendment would be a good thing should Theocratic Fascism ever arise in the U.S.? Or are you just going to call me a bunny killer and arms dealer for drug dealers, Cartels, and Terrorists?

I am actually interested in opposing ideologies. Helps keep me on my toes. Maybe you'll even change my mind on some things.

In Fremont county (15 prisons), they sell T shirts that say, "Canon City, come for vacation, leave on probation." LOL

Forgive my last comment. I was writing it as you were writing yours. I submitted it before I saw yours pop up.

We gun Enthusiasts do worry every time a gun control measure is taken, because we always think "now that they've gotten that, what are they gonna do next?" Also, the these tend to impact the market raising the price and availability of our guns and ammo.

Yeah I know the car thing was stupid. I wrote it this morning when I had just woken up. I'm in AZ.

When you care about an issue like this it is hard to trust the opposition using words like "Reasonable" Because I know how much it varies from person to person. Some people may believe that it's reasonable to eliminate semi-automatic Assault Rifles. I would disagree. My friend is a gunsmith and he would be out of a job if that were to happen.

It is my belief that the vast majority of gun laws would fail miserably at keeping guns out of the hands of bad people. Unless of course they are extremely hard on people like me as well.

A family friend from Australia came to visit last month and was incredibly jealous at all the amazing rifles and pistols that we are allowed to buy here.

But I don't have an opposing Ideology. I've got nothing against responsible gun owners, I've got a bunch of them in my family. The only reason I don't have a gun is because I don't actually need one where I live. I'm just frustrated that it seems like every time some legislation comes up that's actually needed to stem the flow of guns to irresponsible owners, some special interest hijacks the issue.

I'd like to think that guns would help if Christian terrorists ever started getting antsy, but to tell you the truth, it just puts me in the mind of that old joke, about people saying "They want to take away our guns so that they can take away our freedoms, and they answer, "oh no, you can keep the gun, we'll just take the freedom."

The gun has some measure of immediacy to it, but that bible is just as dangerous, the gun can empower an army, but the bible can create one. I recognize they're both constitutionally protected, I just wish the people who used them would be more responsible.

I'm not a good person to keep you on your toes, since I agree with you on most things, and I can't call you a rabbit-killer, because rabbit is delicious. (I'm not kidding, of course you don't really braise rabbits, you want to pretty much just let them soak in a marinade before you grill them, or stew them.)

The biggest thing I've disagreed with you about is the gun trafficking. We're not doing enough to stop it, not nearly, not by a long shot. It's not enough to just say, "Criminals will just find other illegal ways to get their hands on them." Just because a law can't completely and totally eradicate the problem, that doesn't mean the law is redundant or ineffective.

I'm not implying that you are a gun trafficker, I'm implying that there is a lot of gun trafficking going on in the US, that we could actually effectively stop but we are hampered by special interests and dog whistle politics like the kind represented by this sign. The liberals aren't coming to take all the bibles and guns away, and a politician posing like they are the sole line of defense, or a model of defiance for standing up for Christianity and Handguns, is stupid.

It's really stupid.

This person wants to be praised for defending something that wasn't under attack.

Next, he'll go to Pisa and expect a medal for keeping the Tower from falling over.

"The liberals are un-american, they have a secret agenda to get rid of X, but I'm standing in defense of X, and in defense of all you good people who stand with X, Vote for me."

It's such a useful formula for them.

I don't have a rabbit, but if I did, I'd be getting the hot sauce.

Oh yeah, and your use of that guy who claims that "knives should not be allowed to be concealed but guns should" is a great example of why people like don't trust people who want to make "reasonable" gun laws. Because people like you think its reasonable to compare that guy to me.

If you were using him to try and be funny please remember I can't read sarcasm.

SQUIRREL! BANG!!! Got him! Gonna go make some soup now.

I understand your argument, but until the feds get off their asses and start really enforcing the laws already in place, I don't see why they need to go around creating new ones.

Perhaps some gun control measures would make it more difficult for bad people to get guns. It would also make it more difficult for me as well. However, there are a lot of people who want guns banned outright, or they want them so expensive that only the really wealthy can afford to shoot them.

I don't own guns for protection. For me that is only a bonus. I like to shoot. Oddly I find it relaxing. But every year it seems to get more expensive. Its not just the cost of materials its the cost of fighting this battle with gun control activists, and harmful regulation.

I wasn't comparing him to you, I was comparing him to the politician with the sign, and his base.

There isn't a fine, thin line between practical gun regulation and a total bureaucratic totalitarian lockdown on firearms. There's an entire gulf of room. There is plenty of space to make laws that decrease the amounts of gun trafficking and yet support the freedoms of responsible gun owners.

And I don't want to make them and impose them on gun owners, I want the gun owners in on it too, I want you to be involved and I want you to help determine what is reasonable.

I am, however, a little less trusting of the special interests lobbying for what is "reasonable" for them.

Some government is inevitable, and beneficial, and most libertarians I know want what little government they approve of to be as efficient and effective as possible, and we are nowhere near peak efficiency in restricting gun trafficking.

I do regret that some people who are responsible have been hit with costs, and had things made harder for them. I also regret the gun-deaths that could have been prevented with some of the legislation blocked by congressmen influenced by special interests. I don't want either to have happened. The laws aren't perfect. But the responsible gun owners don't need to just fight the legislation of the gun control activists, they need to come up with legislation of their own. Only involvement will ever improve government.

So, to reiterate.

• Not directing criticism at you.
• Criticizing special interests like the NRA controlling what gun legislation gets passed.
• Don't want to use government to enforce what I think is best for them.
• Want to collaborate with everyone to decide what government is in the best interest for everyone. As limited as possible and only used to enhance freedom and safety.
• Criticizing this moron of a politician for his desire to be portrayed as the defender of God and Smith & Wesson
• Rabbits are delicious.

Not comparing him to me personally By I'm in that crowd against gun control.

I do understand your points. Also, I agree with much of what you say.

I also would like to know what the Gun Industry (i.e. manufacturers, retailers, and industry leaders would consider reasonable and gun laws.)

These people were criticized by the left for "Clinging to their guns and Bibles" unfairly to begin with. Now they have adopted the slogan for themselves just to irritate the left. Fine by me. I'm not a creationist or anything but "Jesus is just all right with me." And if that is how they choose to vote that is their prerogative.

I probably agree with you on more issues, but when leftists continue painting pictures of gun owners as ignorant rednecks and heartless violent maniacs. It upsets me personally. So, I will probably end up voting Republican because I like shooting more than I care about gay marriage(which I support), smoking weed (which I support), Abortion (which I don't completely support but am willing to tolerate)

Also, I think Obama and the left are spending too much money and the U.S. Dollar is going to go the way of the DoDo.

Well, I'm for fiscal responsibility, I just don't think the Republicans really represent that right now. I mean they talk about it, (a lot.) But their votes don't reflect it, So I'm going to end up voting Democratic. Not because they completely represent my views and values in all things, but because they seem to be more focused on governing responsibly than the alternative ant this point in time.

I don't think that Republicans or Democrats have been representing fiscal responsibility in their actions. It represents a very strong reason I left the Republican Party. In this Presidential election Mitt is at least discussing spending less, but I doubt it will happen. AZ usually gives its Electoral Votes to Republicans, but I'm probably gonna vote for Gary Johnson, and any other libertarian candidates.

I would rather throw my vote away then continue supporting the lesser of two evils dictum. Politics has become too dichotomous. I'm not sure what gun control has to do with gay marriage or fiscal responsibility, but I suppose you have to vote where your passions lie. Its just a shame the only party I feel completely comfortable voting for is the one I know is going to lose.

Good luck this election season. Watch where you step. there's BS around every corner.

I'm not connecting gun control with fiscal responsibility or gay marriage. I'd say right now my priorities are the economy first, jobs and fiscal stability. With debt coming in second and several policy initiatives following.

I support gun owners constitutional rights, but I just don't think it's an issue in this election. I really do think that this politician is over-hyping the threat. I'm not saying people concerned about the second amendment are over-reacting. I'm saying, yes, some liberals do want to take your guns, but they're not the majority of liberals, and this election that's not the issue. I don't think it's likely that a serious threat to firearms are likely to happen in four years.

I don't expect either party to cut spending right now, and I don't expect either of them to solve the deficit problem. So it's just a matter of looking at what they intend to spend money on and making a decision.

Right now I think the data supports the Democrats, they've got a better record on fiscal responsibility, they're spending, don't get me wrong, but they're getting better value on what they spend than the Republicans have. Economic indicators back it up.

Yeah I know, it's a lesser of two evils situation. But it won't always be. Digital technology is revolutionizing Government and increasing visibility. Over-all transparency is on the rise. And eventually transparency will produce results.

Right now President Obama is holding a pretty centrist administration. Independents, even conservative independents shouldn't be afraid to vote for him, the liberal elements of the party just aren't pulling left as hard as the conservatives are pulling right on the Republicans. I feel like more of the center will be represented with President Obama in office than Mitt Romney. After all, both the right and the left have been able to claim victories in the last four years.

Aside from that, I just really don't like Mitt Romney. He comes off to me as condescending, pandering, and elitist. I don't like the way he acts so amicably with radical right polemicists. I don't like the way he courts christian radicals who vilify people like me. I don't like his record, he doesn't seem to be a capable leader, and I really don't like his repeated lies.

And this is the person this current version of the Republican party put forward. I think If I could replace every one in this congress right now, even if I had to keep them all Republican, I would.

If his electorate likes guns and bibles then I don't see how "Clinging to our guns and bibles" as a slogan on the bottom of sign is over-hyping. Especially when it is an offensive slogan started and still used by Liberals who get upset that these issues lead so many towards the right.

I also doubt that this issue will play a defining role in the next election. However, President Obama will not be seeking a third term. Had he enacted any sort of gun control laws or policies during his first term there would be a huge uprising of people like me. I understand that this is speculative, but I do worry about what he would do if he knew he wouldn't have to face another election. I had the same concerns for George W. Bush.

Also, if fiscally responsible to you means Spending money on things that seem really nice, then I would argue that fiscally responsible really means spending less money than is taken in.

We cant tax rich people enough to pay down our debt, and not enough people in congress or the white house have the Guts to make the heavy spending cuts that would actually help.

Long story short- Spending more money on the things you like and not cutting back on anything else is not Fiscally Responsible. Romney is running on the "I'm gonna reduce the size of government" bandwagon, and "I'm going to make it easier for businesses big and small to hire people", even if that means he's gonna have to lay off some federally employed freeloaders. Fine by me. I hope he gets elected and follows through with it.

Kinda like how private Companies are gonna have to lay off their employees to pay the higher taxes that Obama needs to fund useless government agencies and pet projects. Green energy anyone?

Who knows? Maybe the economic collapse of the U.S. wont be that bad. If the price of food shoots up 400% like everything else, at least I'll still be able to snack on some Wild Rabbit stew. Unless we adopt the Australian gun laws. Then all the guns I own would be confiscated and sawed in half. I supposed I could use some snares, but then I'd have to fight off those pesky coyotes.

sorry got a bit long winded there.

I don't know, I haven't seen a Republican actually willing to cut spending where it is actually necessary. Which means you end up running the so-called Tax and Spend left, and the Borrow and Spend Right.

Also, the liberal position is not simply "Take the money from the rich." We're not trying to patch the hole with the pocketbook of the higher income earners. And yes, those marginal percentages mean a lot over ten years.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the electorate, or the base, I'm talking about the current republican leadership. Who have basically fallen into two groups, those who don't want to pay for the cost of their spending, and those who want to pay for the costs of their spending by cutting spending to insanely vital services.

If his electorate likes something, it's still dog whistle politics if that something is not in danger. Their passion isn't the issue.

"Liberals are trying to take away apple pie and baseball, I'm defending apple pie and baseball, vote for me."

See, it matters there that apple pie and baseball aren't threatened. It makes that slogan insulting, and manipulative.

Christianity: 7% reading out of the bible, 93% reading into it.

yeah, because vigilante justice works so well.

Jesus would carry a Super-Soaker. If he couldn't resolve the situation any other way, he'd then turn water into lead.

Jesus the magician. Turns water into lead.

None, the Romans would have outlawed them.

Well said!...even more on the used side is Usury! End justify s the need!

"bear arms" as in the arms of a bear.

Oh No, Fremont county is way more crazy than el Paso county. Because Fremont goes up the mountain, Westcliffe, etc. has a whole bunch of odd fellows. And my ex is probably one of them. So happy I'm gone.

They are probably migrating from Florida.

I moved to Iowa, where one can actually afford to live, buy a house and eat every week. I couldn't afford to retire in Fremont county, but I can retire here quite easily. And Iowa, so far, is not californicated. LOL

Stupidita - your ignorance knows no limits.

Stupidita, I know the second Amendment is a touchy subject. I've been shooting since as far back as I can remember. I believe that all gun laws and regulations do is make it more difficult for me to enjoy my favorite hobby.

That being said. You sir are an IDIOT! Shut your mouth! Your making decent people like me look bad!

-The interesting thing about the Second Amendment is that it wont really be necesary until they try to take it away.- Someone else said that. I just agree.

Stupidita is probably a woman , or a confused man.

DOCTOR Maddow is very well educated in political science. She does not advocate taking hunting rifles, even revolvers away. I think she stops at the AK47s tho.