Dear Rose,

I understand your concern about people getting injured and even killed. This is a valid concern. But where do you draw the line. Should people be personally responsible for their actions, or should laws be written to protect us from all possible causes? If so, then I believe an argument can be made for banning alcohol -- as many people are killed each year from DWI accidents.

I had similar thoughts to your a few years ago until I learned that the cities that have the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest incidents of violent crimes. Since then, I have reconsidered my views.

Also, I don't believe the proposed new regulations/restrictions would have prevented the latest incidents such as the one at Sandy Hook.

I think, like alcohol, people are suggesting regulating gun ownership, not banning.

There are over 3 million assault rifles in private hands and 52 deaths in 2 yrs! Yeah, sure, let's ban them instead of focusing on what the problem truly is - poor enforcement of existing laws and a broken mental health system.

The twisted simple minds of the progressive / communist democrat will
never grasp the fact that its not the inanimate object the ''gun''
thats the problem , its the society that the progressive / communist
democrat party has promoted and fought to create for the last 50
years.
They have taken God out of every public school and govt building in
America and replaced him with gay and straight public school taught
sex education for 5 year olds, forced mandatory homosexual acceptance , free birth control and tax payer funded abortions for everyone, Church's and Christians routinely get hassled by the Godless communists/ progressives for displaying
nativity scenes during CHRISTMAS, but a crucifix in a jar of urine is art so
dont you even think of trying to limit their right to promote .publish or
display any of the moral less trash they worship.
The liberal communist democrat hollyweed film makers make killing
people with a gun look kool ,fun and no problemo,they are the real ''
gun culture '' not the average US lawful gun owner, they tell us
hundreds of teenagers are killed each year by gun violence,
but they they dont tell us 90% are black and
Hispanic teenage gang members gunning each other down to protect their
drug turf .
The progressive / communist democrat parents whose ''family values ''
are in the toilet, have adopted life like 3D killer video games as
their new baby sitters ...they just dont get it ......

ITS NOT THE GUNS !!!!
ITS THE MORALE LESS SOCIETY THE PROGRESSIVE / COMMUNIST DEMOCRATS HAVE FOUGHT TO CREATE !!!

Bolshevik obama supporter bruce springsteen called for the shooting
of all the the 1%ers in his new album and the hollyweed obama
supporters promote gun violence daily with their shoot em and kill em
all films ...but we cant touch that ,thats our Freedom of Speech, our
First Amendment right, so what do they do ? they do the second best thing ... they go after the Second Amendment.
the simple twisted minds of progressive / communist democrats will ,with a gun if necessary ,defend to their death their First Amendment rights...... but they dont believe in "We the Peoples" Second Amendment rights,

its Bolshevik obamas core supporters that have created this society !!!
,
they are the problem , not guns

I wonder how many rounds a determined killer with a back pack full of
loaded 5 round clips can get off before the cops show up ?
it took 8 mins for the cops to respond to Sandy Hook thats enough time to get off hundreds of rounds if you had enough 5 round clips loaded

Poor Jim....

poor healey , cant come up with a logical response to the truth so he just posts the first think that comes to his childish mind

JIM, they aren't using rocks. They are using guns.
Yes, if you take all those inanimate guns and put them in a pile in the middle of the desert, no one will get shot.
But they are not in a pile in the middle of a desert, they end up being used to kill a lot of people, because people aren't throwing the guns, they are shooting them.
"It" is a lot of things, including the guns - you can't pretend they aren't part of the problem.
And, a piece of advice - better stop the name calling and bullying, you're going to get kicked out of here - again.
A little self control, please.

steve I haven't been kicked out of any where ...again. name calling , if the shoe fits wear it
and your gun, rock, pile in the desert analogy is as useless as a ban on defence weapons would be ...again

JIM:

It's wonderful that you're back! (Did they let you out or did you escape?)

You prove, multiple times every day, that many of the folks on your side of the political spectrum are really, truly out-of-touch with reality and should be ignored (if not institutionalized for their own protection).

Welcome back!

atlink did you clear your rant with your wife ? I couldn't help but notice that since she became a rep you posted your last name and acknowledged shes your other half with your ''you tell em deary'' ''go get em honey'' what a hoot a little bit of political power and your head swells up as big as obamas mouth. your so shallow its funny

I am signed up--no excuses, no apologies--no debates--people who need toys to play with should stick to tonka trucks.

Hey Jim, I will support YOUR Second Amendment rights, IF you support MY First Amendment,article VI right to the separation of church and state. You don't get to pick and choose...

hey orangeman ,its separation of Church and state not separate everyone in state from church, the progressives have taken this amendment to the extremes no one pushes you to be religious but the progressives feel the need to push their beliefs or non believes on everyone else ,I support everyone's right to believe or not believe , I dont go around pushing my beliefs on anyone and I dont want your beliefs or non beliefs pushed on me, if you dont want to see a nativity scene at Christmas ....dont sue the Church just .....DONT LOOK !!

And people are only suggesting that those regulations be adjusted to yield better results.

"Really??", since it has been demonstrated over the last 40 years that every time private firearms are made even a little bit less illegal, crime drops and STAYS DOWN, then you are in favor of abolishing restrictions on firearms?

I'm so glad to hear it. After all, reducing violent crime is the "better results" you want, right?

Scott, a ban on magazines over 10 rounds would have a rational basis, unlike another ban on "assault weapons." However, magazines do not have serial numbers and their sale has not been recorded or controlled as is that of guns or ammunition. There are huge numbers out there, and no one knows who has them. Precisely because of the 1994-2004 ban and the recent discussion of bans, people have bought huge numbers of magazines, which are very long-lasting and quick and easy to manufacture. So a law which attempts to confiscate them will be evaded, turning millions of people into secret criminals, and a law which does not do so will have little effect on their availability for 50 years. To remove these magazines from the people would require us to trash the 4th as well as the 2nd Amendment (i.e., thorough, warrantless searches of every house in America).

actual a ban on high capacity clips will have no effect on anything its just another feel good law,any determined killer can and will do the same amount of carnage with 5 round clips he/she will just need more of them, give me 300 rounds in pre loaded 5 round clips and 5 mins at the range and every round will be spent ....accurately, it took the cops 8 mins to respond to the Sandy Hook school shootings.................

GUN CONTROL :
the lefts theory that a women found dead in an ally raped and strangled with her panty hose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how the would be rapist got the fatal bullet wound to the head

Your liberal sources have told you wrong - as usual. Here's an explanation of one of the executive orders Obama recently signed:

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Doesn't change a thing - just reminds them that there is no prohibition against asking this question.

Proud Consevative:

You're wrong. Laws as described by Steve definitely exist.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/florida-law-bans-doctors-guns/t/story?id=13756579

Just goes to show how little you know. The NRA is one of the most successful gun control advocacy groups that has ever existed. Their "enforce the laws that are on the books" push doesn't repeal anything at all, and they refuse to endorse candidates that are for repeal of anything.

Thats funny . My regular general practitioner Dr always asks if I wear a seat belt and have guns in the house.

Those were not "Executive Orders"

Proud Consevative:

You're wrong. Laws as described by Steve definitely exist. Here's an example of one:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/florida-law-bans-doctors-guns/t/story?id=13756579

56% of gun deaths are suicides. Do you really think a waiting period will stop someone from killing themselves? We're talking about mentally unstable people here, not someone of sound mind. People jump off bridges; jump off buildings, swallow bottles of pills, hang themselves and run out in front of cars, buses and trains. And those people account for 44 of every 100 suicides.

So did suicides drop when the 10 day waiting period was enacted?

Oh, you didn't know? It has been tried. Look it up.

What makes you think most or even some of those suicides are from folks who went out and bought a gun just for that purpose? I would never consider suicide unless I was terminaly Ill. In that case a simple overdose would suffice.

Israel stopped letting soldiers take their weapons home on leave and their suicide rate dropped by 40%.

Yeah, a waiting period will work...they'll just use another gun they already have or some other means to take their own lives...maybe a car on the highway....yeah, that's better.

And what is wrong with a waiting period?

"And what is wrong with a waiting period?"

Next time you go shopping, put everything you bought in a box and give it to someone to hold for 10 days.

If you don't want to do that, then you already know what's wrong with a "waiting period".

Not talking about shopping for eggs and cheese, we're talking about buying a device used to kill people.
And if I'm 18 and want to buy a beer, the waiting period is 3 years.

Of course you're not talking about "eggs and cheese", because YOU LIKE eggs and cheese. Your personal preferences is what you are using to judge what is proper for other people, and you are perfectly willing to enforce that on other people AT GUN POINT by law.

Hypocrite.

How do you know I don't own a rifle, or have a handgun for protection? I can still 'like' guns without feeling that me or anyone else has the right to own whatever I feel like, irregardless of the danger to others or society.
And if you have to wait 10 days to get your gun, too bad. It's not too much to ask.

Amen!

Hear, hear! I am so tired of people telling me what I need,namely people like Rose, who self admittedly, needs to appeal to non-NH residents on her petition for Senator Ayotte.
People with no respect or knowledge of firearms, self-defense, or basic Constitutional rights should stop trying to infringe on our most foundational rights.

Obviously you are not suggesting that there should be no regulations on firearms, Rose and other well minded Americans are just posing the question, you should stop being so fearful.

Other than as a toy and to kill other humans, what is an AR-15 good for?

follow the link to the petition and read some of the responses from the people who have signed this piece of work ,90% are not even from NH, all are totally clueless about weapons and why the Second Amendment was put into our Bill of Rights.

Drunk drivers get arrested when caught. Motorcyclists need a license and a test to drive a motorcycle, as do operators of cars. Unsafe cars are taken off the road. We, as a society do many things, require registrations, training, enforcement of standards and complience and spend much money to prevent deaths and injury by objects and devices that are used normally for productive and positive purposes.
You - Andrew John - abide by laws and practices that make the way you operate your vehicle and the vehicle that you operate safer and more considerate of the people around you. You abide by rules that restrict what you can do on your own property, in consideration of your neighbors and the community you live in.
But when it comes to guns, you say "I am a sovereign citizen, and I get to do what I want".
No, you don't.
Yes, it is our business how many guns you have and what kind, and how you keep, sell, and share them.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not your rights alone, we get to choose too. If we as a society choose to make society safer by asking or even requiring you to adopt reasonable practices and to share reasonable information, then that is what you should do, and stop thinking that you and your wishes are the only ones that count.

"Yes, it is our business how many guns you have and what kind, and how you keep, sell, and share them."

Spoken like a true Nazi. No more Liberty in these States, now it's naked power. The powerful have decided what you may and may not own, and they will enforce it. No persuasion, no discussion, and NO flexibility. Just the end-play of all politics, POWER.

No Bob, it's a community and a society.
Are you allowed to own a bazooka? A tank? An anti-aircraft gun? Make ricin, or mine your front yard?
When it comes to guns, you folks seem to think that you can do whatever you want, and ignore the safety and consideration of those around you. You want no restrictions, any attempt or even a suggestion that reasonable means can and should be taken to lessen the amount of gun violence in this country, you start calling those doing the suggesting names like "Nazi".
I'm an American too, and my family has been in NH since 1648. I don't have a flag with a snake on it and I don't sign letters with "In Liberty", but I and others like me do have a right to ask reasonable people to take reasonable measures in consideration of those around them.

Yes, Steve. Nazi. Someone who thinks that their opinions are so perfect they get to force them on everyone else, at gunpoint.

What do you care if I own a bazooka, mix ricin or drive a tank? It does NOTHING to do for me to mine (or farm) my front yard. Nothing. So you get to say NOTHING about it.

And in return, you get to choose how you live your life. Imagine that.

Bob brings the radicals dream to it final solution. The crazies want to stockpile their own bazooka, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, make ricin, and mine their front yards. They would also like any excuse to kill some American soldiers, police, or crossing guards as well.

Well, "Really??", you could go back and see just who brought up those things in the first place, but no.

Let me put your concerns to rest: Yes, I am an ANARCHIST. I think any prohibition is a violation of an individual's rights to live their life as they see fit. Any prohibition at all.

People must be judged by their actions, not their toys. Punish those who do harm, regardless of the tools that are used. Inanimate objects do not use themselves, an individual is always the ultimate cause of any harm that is done. Prosecute that individual, not the object used.

Pretty happy I don't live in Bob R's neighborhood. Sounds like a budding warlord.

Steve, in your twisted vision you see people who leave other people ALONE are "warlords"? That is the most ignorant and foolish definition of "warlord" I've ever seen. How stupid you must be.

So what do you call people who tell others what they may or may not own in their own homes? What do you call people who hire armed thugs to beat down people's doors and take their property?

I know what I call them: Republicans and Democrats.

there are restrictions in place already, but you ''thinkers '' just dont get it ...they dont restrict the criminals or mentally impaired
we have 20 thousand gun laws and restrictions on the books today and somehow you think just a couple more will create your utopia.
even outlawing 30 round clips will do nothing, give me 5 mins at the gun range and a backpack full of loaded 5 round clips and I could squeeze off as many rounds or more than the crazy kid at sandy hook got off in the 8 mins it took for the cops to respond.

JIM, you're arguing logic and reason. The prohibitionists are arguing emotion. That's why they can't hear you, and why their arguments make no sense to you either.

The simple reality is that neither "side" can hear the other "side" because neither is speaking the language of the other.

This whole "issue" of prohibition is going to come down, again, to naked force. The prohibitionists will not stop, ever. Those who want Liberty have tried reason, logic, and compromise (thus the 20,000 laws already on the books), but none of that works because it doesn't satisfy the emotions of the prohibitionists. They will always demand more prohibition.

I have no idea how to stop them. The 2nd Amendment was an attempt, and it has failed. To gain the votes of the emotional prohibitionists, politicians promise to "do something" no matter how stupid or counterproductive that "something" is. And that is why those who love Liberty are always on the defensive.

Guns in the State House was one small Liberty that effected almost no one. Yet the prohibitionists reacted like their children were all going to die because of it. That is always how the prohibitionists react to other people's liberty, emotional denial.

Maybe the term should be quasi-Nazi. Or Nazi-esque.
It isn't the request for more responsible ownership, it is the unfettered attack on our rights by means of hyperbole and the skirting around of the legislative process.
You, StevefromNH,have no constitutional right to know what guns, how many guns, how they are stored, how much ammunition other than as granted by current gun law. I find it laughable that you actually would make such a claim when there is zero legal standing.That type of comment is equally if not more offensive than any name calling that you are accusing JIM of.

>This whole "issue" of prohibition is going to come down, again, to naked force.
Sounds like a budding warlord.
You live on a farm, right?
You want a bazooka, you can probably get away with that on a farm. I don't want my neighbor to have a bazooka, and I think the current gun laws back me up. I don't want my neighbor to have a bazooka because I think it's a very bad idea to allow ANYONE in this community to have a bazooka, the community and it's laws agree with me, and I'm sorry if that means that you can't have one either, but too bad.
You say you reserve the right to mine your front yard. I'll assume that you have "No Trespassing" signs all over the place, and it is certainly your right to assert claim to your own property (but sometimes it isn't: if your house catches on fire you have to let the FD try to put it out, etc.). But you do NOT have the right to mine your own front yard. You may get away with it. Think of someone who is lost and out of gas, needs help, can't read, can't read english, or for whatever reason steps on your property with no threat to you - a much more likely scenario than govt. soldiers showing up, unless they find out you're a well armed ANARCHIST.
Do you really think that your right to privacy trumps their right to life?
And if it's ok for you to mine your front yard, how about the house next to the school, where a group of kids chasing another onto your lawn causes the first one to get blown up?

Steve, do you read what you write? The Warlord is YOU, who demand to control what other people do, what other people own, what other people be "allowed" to buy, all based on YOUR option of what is good or bad.

Another indication is your use of the word "mine". I thought you meat "dig for minerals", which is why when I replied I included the verb "farm", which is another activity that the prohibitionists love to stop people from doing with their own property.

But no, you did not use the word "mine" in terms of "digging up minerals", you meant it in the most violent, hostile way.

I used the word Nazi very carefully, and you prove me correct over, and over, and over again.

The naked force you misunderstood means YOU supporting laws that disarm those neighbors you are so terrified of, by law, at gun point. The naked force I referred to is YOUR use of force.

My answer to this whole issue involves no force at all. I want peace, and respect for others. Leaving people alone is not violence, it is peace.

It is you, Steve, who is the raving violent maniac. YOU are advocating violence against others. You are the aggressor, the thief, the one bringing violence into the discussion.

Do you really think "any prohibition is a violation of an individual's rights to live their life as they see fit. Any prohibition at all."
You misunderstood my use of the word "mine", in the context that it was used I'm not sure how, but ok.
So do you think you have the right to plant explosive mines in your front yard?
If not, why not?

Steve, here you go again, focusing on "explosive mines" to make sure to keep the conversation as violent as possible.

Have you considered therapy, to see why you have these violent impulses?

Yes, any prohibition is a violation of the individual right to choose their own life. What you will do is say, "Bob wants a nuclear bomb!" because of your violent impulses and life of terror.

What you fail to realize is that people do not live in isolation. There is such a thing as community, culture, society. Boycott works. If you don't like people who own guns (or atomic bombs), don't do business with them. If you don't like someone putting explosive mines in their front yard, then educate people to know that that person is doing something you consider dangerous.

I realize that refusing to do business with someone violates the Progressive rules about civil rights, after all that's "prejudice". But I'm sure you can bend your principles to allow someone not to serve "nuclear bomb owners" where you would at the same time object to someone refusing to serve "blacks".

I'd be curious what the homeowner's insurance premiums would be for having a front lawn with explosive mines. I'd expect liability insurance in such a situation to be, forgive the term, "prohibitive".

You do realize, or maybe you don't, that setting such lethal traps is already illegal?

Bob, what I'm trying to say is that it is ok to impose limits.
For instance, guns in the Statehouse, guns on college campuses, elimination of all gun free zones. To what purpose?
There were guns at the street corner in Arizona when Giffords was shot, an armed guard who returned fire in Columbine, cops with guns get shot, there were many guns in the area at Fort Hood, armed guards at VT, so I'm not buying the NRA 'guns everywhere' premise.
Why don't we have the right to expect that there are places where arms are prohibited? Why don't we have the right to expect that nobody has the right to guns and magazines that shoot 1 or 2 or 3 rounds a second in 100 round batches.
Don't we have the right to impose reasonable limits, even if those limits are at odds with your anarchist tendencies?

Steve, no. You don't get to impose "reasonable" limits because no two people agree on what is "reasonable".

It's the same reason the emotional argument about "need" doesn't translate into logic, because no two people agree what they themselves "need".

Why aren't the 20,000 laws which effect firearms not "reasonable" enough for you? Why have they failed? The prohibitionist knee-jerk reaction is to pass yet another law, impose yet another restriction, and when that fails do it again and again.

Your presenting particular events where private firearms did not "prevent" a crime is no different than my reminding you that every murder is already illegal and the law did not "prevent" it from happening.

You have no right to to expect anything. To use the word "right" when talking about other people is exactly the same argument used by the slave owner to promote is "right" to the labor of his slave. Because that is exactly what you're doing, by law: Enslaving others to your opinion of right and wrong.

You also have no "right" to not be offended.

well said!

A J, dont hold your breath, these people are not going to bite the hand that feeds them....

I am finally realizing that these aggressive anti-gun ideologues are cut from the same cloth as the "why do we need nuclear arms" crowd (if not actually the very ones re-constituted). They couldn't persuade such a grandiose vision of disarmament for the US so they needed to try and re-focus and set a more realistic goal of stealing our freedoms...
Their attempts to rob us of our freedoms for reasons that have already been proven ineffective display the same character profile of the thief that so boldly enters a liquor store or convenience mart to take what they think they deserve!
The very attempt is reprehensible.

JIM, the hand feeds you too. Police, fire, roads, military, parks, jails, courts, and by the way are you on medicare yet?

Spending issue? Or is it a "Receipts" issue?

Receipts issue?! Is this more obfuscation?
It is unquestionably a spending issue born from an administration bent on buying their votes from the electorate. And like any other addicted nd determined spendthrift, this administration has no limit in sight. $15million paid to the senate budget committee and we haven't seen a budget in over 4 years.

It seem you know very little about America, Apljak. Have you ever been here?

@Really-I don't understand your sarcasm.
@Steve-I thought you meant mine as in gold mining also
These non-sensical anti-gun arguments already don't make any sense. You don't need to add any degree of difficulty by being vague or ambiguous...

Steve how old are you ? your either not old enough to pay taxes yet and dont understand how it works or your part of the 45% who dont pat any taxes EVERYTHING you mentioned was paid for by me and the rest of the American taxpayers ...who actually pay taxes . I'm the hand that feeds the police,firemen, roads, etc,etc

Nonono, this will allow you to look good by comparison. You can point to me and say, "Gee, he's crazy for calling prohibition what it is."

Good luck with compromise. It's worked great so for, right?

actually Bob is 100 % correct in his defence of the Second Amendment .Liberty and Freedom, any of us who believe in freedom and liberty are crazy in the progressive/communists eyes, their all about the Borg initiative or the collective as Bolshevik obama calls it

Why aren't these same anti-gun people speaking out about 1st person shooter video games?
Even though I would be unaffected and still think that they would have no right, at least they actually have some affect albeit small.
It is probably less about results and more about selfish ideology...

I think its first person shooter games that get all these gun nuts believing the crazy idea that having an AR-15 under your pillow is going to make you magically safer.

there is nothing magic about it ...slip the safety off aim and pull the trigger , its not magic.
better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it

Correct. No First Amendment without the Second Amendment.

most of these anti gun grabbers here think the second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms for hunting, they truly are clueless, especially steve from NH , when the govt gives up their ''assault weapons'' and high capacity clips then we can talk about us giving up ours

Sounds like you and Bob Robertson might be plotting some kind of a revolution. So, since the majority of the citizens of the U.S. (and NH, for that matter) appear to disagree with you, you've decided that to even the odds and force your will upon the majority you need to stockpile weapons and threaten a revolution unless you get your way? You know, I think that's the actual definition of tyranny.
Ain't that interesting.
Just because you may be asked to register those weapons so that this country can try to get some kind of handle on the insane proliferation of firepower, and maybe look into how many weapons JIM and Bob have and what they intend to use them for? Maybe you too, based on your sentiments, because you are sounding more and more like a danger to society.
Please add this to your flag, under the snake:
"We have met the enemy, and he is us".

steve its none of your business or obamas or anyone else's business how many weapons I own, I have passed the mandatory back ground checks, I'm not now nor have I ever been on prescription drugs for any mental health issues and have no criminal record and I poses the weapons I own legally. You sound more like a nazi with every post you write, my intent of weapon ownership is not a secret, every weapon I own is a defence weapon ......you and your comrades are the real danger to a free society, not Bob, Proud Conservative or myself and we dont need to add anything to our flag because we already know who the enemies of freedom are...they post hear regularly and sound just like you

one more thing steve, you keep implying that somehow us gun owners who understand exactly what the Second Amendment was put into our Bill of Rights for are a minority, you truly are clueless ,keep drinking the obama kool aid , you progressive/ communists poke this bear long enough your bound to get bit.

Widely held by who?

Apljak is a very wide person.

Cops in Britain are not armed - how come?

steve look at a world map ... this aunt Britain , I suggest if you think you might feel safer there because of their gun laws ...MOVE

JIM - you didn't answer my question.
And Andrew John, current laws are such that anyone can buy a semi-auto handgun or rifle.
Your crowd tried to make it a lot easier last year with bills that:
- would allow anyone to conceal a weapon without a permit
- would allow anyone to walk around with a round in the chamber
- would allow convicted felons to legally own a weapon, and (see #1) conceal it without a permit
- prevent anyone from prohibiting weapons on any public property
Which, taken together means that a convicted felon could legally buy a gun, carry concealed, loaded, with a round in the chamber, to a soccer game that my kids are playing in. And I personally know a convicted felon that would do that.
And BTW, I believe most people killed by guns are killed by other people that were NOT criminals - until the murder.

P.S.
JIM, I have as much right to be here and disagree with you as you do with me, whether you like it or not. Even if you have a gun and I don't.

whats the matter steve dont like being told what do to ? you have as much right to be here as I have to own as many legal weapons as I WANT. stop telling me what or how many guns to own and I'll stop asking you to leave

steve I did answer your question, this is not Britain so it does not matter to us Americans why they dont arm themselves and there was no law proposed that would have allowed felons to legally own a hand gun or carry concealed thats BS and you know it, but a convicted felon can be in possession of a muzzle loader but it can not be concealed or in their home, they can only be in possession of it while hunting, and the law would of only allowed legal gun owners ,who already passed a background check to buy a gun, to carry it concealed

There absolutely was a law proposed to allow felons to carry handguns, it was proposed by FSP member Andrew Manuse, from Derry, and it was House Bill 1375.
From the Union Leader:

"Crimes currently defined as “non-violent” under state law include burglary, drug dealing and “trafficking in persons,” which includes sexual trafficking and pimping. This bill would allow a lot of bad guys to carry deadly weapons under state law."

I agree with you, you absolutely have the right to keep/own/bear as many weapons as you want.
What's wrong with getting them registered?
If you have 100 of them, and I'm thinking of buying a house next to you I want to know that.
If I'm your neighbor, and you have assault weapons, clips, handguns, semi-automatic handguns I want to know that too - especially if you have a kid who acts imbalanced. Ring a bell?
I want to know that so I can go up to your front door and ask you to please make sure your weapons are locked up and unavailable to the nut living in your house, and if you are unreasonable I probably do want to move, or do something because you are a danger to the community.

We will not stop until every unborn child has an AR-15!

A little paranoid, don't you think? Maybe a lot?
The 2nd amendment gives us the freedom to bear arms.
So why not a bazooka?

actually you can own a bazooka

That's great! How do I get one? I should mention I want a working bazooka, with shells.

You can own a bazooka - if the government lets you. Same goes for sawed-off shotguns and machine guns.

It takes special permission to get them, which means that ownership of such is not a Second Amendment right.

Stephen D. Clark, "It takes special permission to get them, which means that ownership of such is not a Second Amendment right."

Just to make sure I understand exactly what you mean, because it requires a special license to give a talk which puts the President in an unflattering light, then speaking unflattering things about the President is not a First Amendment right?

I just want to make certain I know what your reasoning is.

Bob Robertson, you can try to prove me wrong, but don't expect me to try and prove your false assertions right.

My reasoning is this: The Second Amendment does not give you a right to own any arm whatsoever. The arms to which you'll be allowed can be restricted by law. They just can't be altogether banned. Antonin Scalia said as much in 2008's D.C. v. Heller decision. So you can have guns, but you can't just have any one you want. Registration and licensing can be required. In other words, infringement is constitutional because the militia is supposed to be well regulated.

This is evidently true given the long-standing restrictions on weapons like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Why doesn't the Second Amendment permit those? Because the Supreme Court hasn't said it does and they're illegal. My bet is that the Supreme Court wouldn't reverse the law about those on Second Amendment grounds, either.

Restrictions on gun ownership can and will be applied, and as long as it isn't a blanket ban on all guns, then they will be upheld in court. If Congress decided to outlaw semiautomatic firearms, I bet the Supreme Court, so strongly influenced by originalists, would uphold it.

Stephen, Sadly, because you do not know what a "right" is, I am not going to be able to "prove you" anything. You're not going to care what I say, because we two come from different basic premises. That you're statements are false is obvious to anyone who understands "rights" or Constitutional law, something which you do not.

The "rights" mentioned in the Bill of Rights, save the tradition of trial by jury, are what are called "negative rights". My right to sing, to speak, to defend myself, to own property, or to be secure in my privacy, is not granted by government at all regardless of your protestations to the contrary. Rights are not granted, they pre-exist the government itself.

Government is instituted among men in order to safeguard those rights, or at least that is the excuse given by those who believe a government can do so. You might have read that somewhere before.

Logical order of operations: Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech. It is obvious that the freedom of speech pre-exists both congress and the laws it may pass to interfere with that speech.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right exists, all the government can do is interfere with it. That the government has in fact infringed upon those rights, with their "free speech zones" and their restrictions on arms does not magically do away with those rights.

Such laws invalidate the government itself, by breaking its own contract.

I know what a legal right is, Bob. It's something for which you don't need government permission. Any other kind of right is rhetorical.

You need government permission to legally own a sawed-off shotgun, therefore owning one isn't a legal right. Same goes for machine guns and bazookas.

As far as metaphysics goes: The only rights you have that aren't secured by the government are those you can secure for yourself. If you can't secure the right, and someone, or some others, deprive(s) you of it, then it doesn't exist outside of fancy.

Thanks for the false didactics, though. I'll put them on Craigslist and sell them to the highest bidder. They should fetch me a good laugh.

Stephen D. Clark, I repeat: You will not care about what I say, because we are coming from different basic premises.

"You need government permission" does not mean the keeping and bearing of arms isn't a right. Merely that it has, in fact, been infringed.

That you approve of that infringement is, again, no bearing what so ever on the right itself. It just means you will aid and abet in its infringement.

Let me put it another way: I am capable of owning a machinegun without anyone's permission or paperwork, and without harming anyone. The same way millions of pot growers do so, and millions of speeders do their illegal thing as well. I do not need anyone's permission to do so, as should be noted from the many people who smoke under-age, who take heroin, and who post online without thinking.

So you go ahead and beg your betters for permission, like a good little slave.

A "slave?" Boy, Bob, it's not too hard to make you lose your cool. What an ugly display.

That's why America is rejecting right wingery. It runs on contempt. Thanks for the illustration.

Stephen D. Clark, so now objecting to asking permission to live is called "right wing"?

I just want to make sure I understand. By calling my objection to having to ask permission to live "right-wingery", are you saying that being happy to beg permission of one's betters is politically "left"?

I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way, I'm just surprised because Fascism is usually called "right-wing", and the regulatory morass you seem to agree with is textbook Fascist.

Now it's fascism? Geez, you just can't help yourself, can you, Bob? It seems as though you're veering from one insult to the other just to reassure yourself that you're not inferior after all.

Let me give you a little help on the fascism stuff:

"Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism"

http://rense.com/general37/char.htm

Stephen D. Clark, you feel insulted when people ask you questions? Fascinating.

Did I accuse you of being anything? No. The closest I got was comparing your begging your betters for permission to being like a good little slave.

Thank you for the pointers. Let's see...

1) Nationalism. Yep, the US govt does that.

2) Disdain for human rights. Not just the govt, but you've been denying the human right to self defense from the start.

3) Scapegoats. Like, maybe, gun owners? Hahaha. Oh, and pot smokers, gays who want to get married or join the military, etc.

4) Supremacy of the military. So, Steve, who gets the machine guns again, the military and the cops? While the peasants have to beg permission.

5) Rampant Sexism. Hmm, considering Hillary, Rice, Feinstein, and Albricht, I think this definition needs updating.

6) Controlled mass media. I think that speaks for itself. Whether you think the CNN bunch are state mouthpieces, or that Fox fills that role while CNN is saintly, that just proves that divide and conquer is working.

7) Obsessive National Security. Two words: Bradley Manning.

8) Religion and Govt intertwined. America, America. God shed his light on thee!

9) Corporate power protected. Hahahaha! I think the bailouts were proof enough.

10) Labor suppressed. Not if "labor" is itself Corporate, and don't forget the full name was National Socialist Worker's Party.

Continued.

continued.

11) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts. This author obviously never met the Court Intellectuals such as Paul Krugman and Noam Chomsky.

12) Obsession with Crime and Punishment. Like the rapid militarization of police (see machine guns above), three-strikes laws, and the highest ratio of prisoners in human history? 'Merica!

13) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption. Open a newspaper.

14) Fraudulent Elections. Are you saying the Fuhrer wasn't honestly elected by the masses of people who support him? Really? Or was that AlGore who won, really. I forget.

Well, Steve, it seems that by the definition you have provided, these United States are, as I said, Fascist. And that's not counting Mussolini's definition (since he coined the phrase) of "corporate/government partnership".

Thank you, Stephen D. Clark, for a fun intellectual exercise. I'm wondering, actually, how you're going to blame this one on me.

Bob, your interpretation that the United States is equivalent to a fascist state is such a gross distortion that all the term means today in this historical context is an insult. It can't be taken seriously.

Stephen D. Clark, so rather than face the plain facts as YOU PRESENTED THEM, you call me insulting.

Well, I did say I wondered how you were going to twist YOUR LIST into being my fault, and you sure did. I half expected you'd just walk away with your tail between your legs when you were so obviously beaten. But no. It's been fun, good night.

Here, in one Mr. Bob Robertson, we have a genius who picks his nose, examines his finger and yells GOLD!

What has happened to our State?
It is most worrisome that I see a yearly decline in the quality of NH politicians. The "live free or die" motto is slowly being lost.
I originally believed that it was the few dense student/liberal populations like Keene and Dover that were tipping the scales toward more liberal minded politicians.
Now it seems that there is a growing plague as people from throughout the country with non-NH ideals are actually moving here because of the stupid "first in the nation" primaries and the goal to ensure that it tips blue instead of red!
Maybe it is best to let this primary business go and hopefully these liberals will leave our state,go bother someone else,and let us live as we have in the past without the most recent liberal minded legislation!
Sorry for the rant...the most recent anti-American, anti-NH proposals and political lockstep that many of our politicians have with the president has me livid!

I dont believe feinstein...sorry cant bring myself to call her good or senator, will get her gun grab wish list voted into law,myself and many others will not ever register our weapons or give them up, no matter what laws or executive actions Bolshevik obama and his regime put on the books. obama and holder are two of the biggest thug gun traffickers in the world but tell the American people we cant sell guns to one another in the name of safety. Live Free or Die to the progressive/communists that have infested our state is nothing but a few words on their licence plates, they dont feel safe unless their under the jack boots of a nanny govt that promises to hold their hand and guide them from cradle to grave, they have lost their individualism and become a part of the collective, obama is waging wars on every front on the American peoples liberty's, deeply dividing us on every issue he is a masterful marxist and knows that if he can take away our strenght in numbers he will win, by causing turmoil on every issue he has some fighting for this right and others fighting for that right and we have become un united because we are spread thin trying to each defend the liberties he is attacking that we hold more important over another , but I think on the Second Amendment we will unite because most of us understand the Second Amendment is the one right that protects all our other rights.
Live Free or Die are more than just words on our licence plates to some of us.

Why not? You're not a criminal until you kill someone, even then they are working on keeping you free from judgement via crazy stand your ground laws.

That's the crazy that ends up in a Ruby Ridge scenario.
Frank Szabo has a bunker waiting is South America for this sheriff

Unfortunately Jim, there was no surprise!
I, too, was thinking of another person and we should be concerned.
Amazing how you see the same weak minded souls in lockstep with the current petty politics as they did back in the 30's and 40's!!

I thInk we have material here for a new TV game show ..

ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A LEGISLATURE !!

Not to worry--Amazon now has the Parrot drone for sale for $300--just load it up with some explosives--no registration necessary.................

Mr. Clark,
And here is where the neoconservatives talk out of both sides of their mouths.

You hear Scalia screaming that the constitution is "dead, dead, dead", he calls himself an "originalist", if the constitution doesn't say it, then it isn't so. So therefore, neocons look for specifics regarding Social Security, free choice, and/or gay rights.

Then, out of the other side of their mouths, they pretend that the second amendment says that the people have the right to arm themselves against a tyrannical government, yet nowhere does it actually say that.

They are "originalists" when it suits them politically, and then they "interpret" what the constitution says when it suits them politically to do that.

That's why I believe Scalia is a political hack.