Mike McClellan is a Gilbert resident and former English teacher at Dobson High School in Mesa.
Current users sign in here.
sanrocksc, thanks for the clarification; you're right that as written, I was misleading. I'm glad you made the correction. I appreciate it.
So he had a 100-round magazine on the AR-15. How fast could he unload that, had it not jammed?
I just want to know when the last state militia (Mentioned in the 2nd amendment) was last called up. Forget the machine gun argument. Why can't we own a fully armed tank or a fully functioning fighter jet? Once again the facts are being misrepresented. Why doesn't the mainstream media report ALL of the facts? They only report on the statements made by the gun lobby.
Mike it seems logic is a bit skewed towards the lefts political agenda. It has been proven time and time again throughout history that gun registration leads to confiscation, this isn't just made up.The argument of the impact on a given situation is literally null. The reality of any situation is that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a firearm is a GOOD guy with a firearm. STOP TRYING TO DISARM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. [wink] Thanks Mike!
What did the Reagan ban accomplish? Has SCOTUS agreed with it?
Mike it seems your logic is a bit skewed towards the lefts political agenda. It has been proven time and time again throughout history that gun registration leads to confiscation, this isn't just made up. Reality is the only thing that stops a bad guy with a firearm is a GOOD guy with a firearm. STOP TRYING TO DISARM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. [wink] Thanks Mike!
Deddzone, many right-wingers now consider Reagan to be an apostate and a RINO, not a saint. Same goes for Barry Goldwater. Both committed the cardinal sin of attempting to actually work with the other side. Today's right-wingnuts treat the opposition as Enemies Of The State, who should be charged with treason (and they obviously don't know the Constitutional definition of treason), not worked with.
100 round drums always jam,it's almost a given.A standard magazine for the AR15 is 20-30 rounds.20-30 rounds is not hi-cap,it's what the platform was designed for.
Unfortunately Mr. McClellan didn't get his facts straight. He can own a Tommy Gun in Arizona as long as he follows all the NFA rules for transfer and passes a FBI background check. Perhaps he would feel safer if he lived in New York where he couldn't own such a weapon?
AZ does not prohibit the private ownership of F/A weapons,they are considered NFA weapons and are priced out of the range of most citizens.I'm a pro 2a guy through and through,I respect other peoples views on the subject,but I wish the media in all its forms would do their homework on the subject.I've read and heard more misinformation on firearms in the past month than I care to recall.
NBC yesterday that an Assault rifle was NOT used in Sandyhook. And that the shooter tried to purchase weapons 5 seperate times and was denied. That shows the laws are already working and that any attempt to ban these weapons is for purely politcal purposes. It's amazing the President would flat out lie to us.
If I'm ever trapped in a room with an armed maniac, I sure hope he has the biggest drum magazine he can find, because, just like the Aurora shooter found, it will jam before he can get off as many shots as he could with a standard magazine.
The Aurora shooter had to discard his AR-15 and did most of the damage with his shotgun and pistol.
In addition to the absurd talk of a 900 round magazine, I wonder where McClellan got the idea that an AR-15 can fire any faster than an ordinary pistol? One trigger pull = one round.
OldGuy, Arizona's state militia is defined in the State Constitution. The fact that it hasn't had to be called up isn't relevant. I've never had to use my fire extinguisher, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose.
Is Mike McC feigning shock of Politicians using hyperbole? I would also question where anyone gets a “God” given right to own a gun. I will point to the fact that there are many people who have many weapons that likely would fall into Mike and the President’s prohibited list of arms. I will also point to the fact that far less than 1% of these people have gone on a killing rampage. I agree, I don’t understand why people need high powered weapons, but I also don’t make the connection to how it ends murderous rampage either. Is KeithE4 above insinuating that those on the left (including the President) are working with the other side? If so, why is does he so often use the Executive order trump card?
Historically, the 2nd Amendment is any small arms, ones that could be carried by one or more infantry. And some could make the argument that should include grenades, RPGs and perhaps even Stinger Missiles. The Hughes Amendment (signed by Reagan banning new machine gun purchases) was a last minute insertion to the Firearms Owners Protection Act, a provision fought hard for by the NRA to correct egregious provisions of the pacifistic hippie era 1968 Gun Control Act. Charlie Rangel dubiously included it at the last moment and it stuck (may he rot in hell). In any case, Mr. Mike Limp-noodle, we do want our machine guns back. It's been a hard fought road to gain back that which has been taken away by opportunist pacifists/fascists. Freedom has a cost as our forefathers were aware and warned. Those not willing to accept those costs are doomed to a future guaranteed to all those who are not willing to defend themselves, and that is an eventual subjection by those in power.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That is the text of the 2nd Amendment as approved by the Secretary of State.
Now just exactly is NOT absolute about that?
Where are the quibble words?How can you possibly interpret those words with any wiggle room?
KeithE4, I agree. That herd of RINO's has been growing and weakening the GOP for years now. I am a RINO, as I rarely agree with the "do as we say or else" mentality of the rightwing who has ruined the modern Republican Party.
Willie,They get interpreted to death, reinterpreted and turned on their heads. In actuality it is pretty absolute, and any infringement a criminal act, but then according to Mark Twain: "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
It gets discussed and fractured with bad sarcasm by people like McClellan because as H. L. Mencken observed: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." The whole question is nonsensical and every time the government tries to do anything about it, the unintended consequences make it worse. Hence if we just stop getting alarmed at imaginary hobgoblins conjured up by the truly ignorant, like McClellan here, it won't get any worse.
Actually, I believe the restrictions on machine guns to be unconstitutional. I don't see how the federal government has the power to restrict them.
Mike, No right is absolute. That includes "free speech".
"...how the federal government has the power to restrict them."
It started with alcohol. The feds didn't have any Constitutional power to regulate it, but they could tax it. Distillers without tax licenses were shut down by agents of the Internal Revenue Division of the Treasury department. The moonshiners simply called them "Revenoors". They still use that same power to tax to regulate gun sales and possession. If you want to own a machine gun, you have to apply for a special tax license. The BATF is still a division of the Treasury Department.Give the feds a little power, and they will stretch it beyond all reason.
Valley Native is on the correct path. They may well go after our ability to buy ammo.
webnikaz, pro-gunners sound funny because, on the one hand they boast that owning a machine gun is legal (as long as you *register* it and pay exorbitant prices because their numbers are *capped*). They talk like this is a good thing (as they reply to someone who says "we don't allow machine guns to be freely owned.").
But, when we talk about registering firearms, or capping the numbers of rounds a firearm can hold, suddenly it's "leads to confiscation! Violates the 2nd amendment!"
(continued due to this site's unhelpful sp@m error)
(continued)I think Mike's article raises a very valid point. We draw lines (bore diameter, barrel length, etc.). That hasn't been seen as violating an individual's right, nor has it led to confiscation (machine-gun owners will attest).
(continued)Mike's next article should focus on how anti-gunners spoke of "reasonable controls" while admitting that any control was just one step toward their ultimate goal of banning. Or, "legitimate gun owners" who were depicted as sportsman, never home self defense. (I.e., "nobody needs a ___ to hunt deer.").
Gun owners didn't become irrationally opposed to control all by themselves. The anti-gun movement set reasonable control back *decades*.
I will no longer comment on articles at this site. The site's sp@m error makes it too difficult to contribute thoughtfully to discussion.
Mike McClellan and his “Tommy Gun” in action!
While, the Democrats are pulling out all the stops in their push for an assault weapons ban – and trying to chip away at the Second Amendment with new gun control measures.
President Obama says he supports the new gun control legislation before Congress. Like the proposed legislation by Democrat lawmakers to; reinstate a ban on assault weapons, outlaw the sale of select specialty firearms, and ban the sale of ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds.
As for why a civilian needs an AR-15 with more than 5 rounds, consider the case of Charles Clayton of New Orleans, as reported by NPR. Having heard of looting of looting in post-Katrina New Orleans, he and his neighbors took turns watching their neighborhood, armed with AR-15's. At one point, Mr Clayton chased off a truck load of looters. He didn't have to fire a shot, but if those men had been armed, and decided that they wanted his property, who's going to tell him what kind of rifle he can use or that he's only allowed to fire 5 shots?I certainly don't expect a hurricane to flood the Valley, but natural and man-made disasters do happen and they do overload law enforcement. Don't try to tell me that I'm only allowed to be prepared for the most likely disasters.
As at least one commenter pointed out, you didn't do your research. You can indeed own a fully automatic Tommy gun in the state of Arizona if you can jump through the required hoops. Your article demonstrates that you are as ignorant as a second-grader with regards to firearms, so you should recuse yourself from commenting until you shed your infantile mindset and educate yourself.
In an earlier column, Mike decried the availability of "cop killer bullets", apparently having bought into the myth of Teflon coated bullets that can penetrate vests.
This willful lack of knowledge about guns is very common in the media.I can't understand why they wouldn't want to know more about a subject that they obviously have strong feelings about.
Big guns make little scared men feel powerful. It reminds me of the man who owns that giant, pickup truck or that over-the-top sports car. It is just an icon to build up that fragile ego, compensating for ones short comings.
Did anyone really read the report???? The news I read stated the rifle was in the car.......not used in the school !!!! He used hand guns!! Also I've not seen a single word in any comments, reporters or others, about the guy in China slashing 20 kids with a knife! No gun there! An active, athletic madman could kill or injure as many children with a crescent wrench, motorcycle chain, baseball bat, hand ax, knife, car, gasoline & lighter, Molotov 'cocktails".....on & on!!!! Maybe the former english teacher could 'talk' 'em out of it......until he understands the real meaning of the 2nd amendment!!!! Teacher, how would you protect yourself or your family (if you have one) if 5 big, bad gang members came at you with those tools in hand I mentioned, with intent to kill????
Aside from the fact that Thomas Jefferson was considered pretty left-wing in his day(with the exception of the whole slave owner thing)...
Remind us just where in history gun regulation led to confiscation? And let's not confuse correlation with causality.
Don't try Hitler or Stalin because it just ain't so.
It is not a question of need. I believe in what one of our founding fathers had to say. "He who is willing to give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither and shall lose both" Having said that, I do agree that we need to get a handle on the nuts out there that are doing these things. It is true I believe, that most of these people demonstrate and have demonstrated anti social behavior. It should be possible to bring them in for screening not withstanding the ACLU stance of - let them go till they hurt somebody or themselves.
"informed", sociologists actually say that people who are strongly opposed to gun ownership seem to be people who feel as if they're not up to the task of defending themselves or their families in an emergency, and so want everybody else to have to abdicate such power to the government so they will never have to face the possibility of failing to protect their loved ones.
The fact that I am prepared for an emergency doesn't make me a coward. The fact that you choose not to be prepared doesn't make you brave.
Well, as I've been schooled here a time or two, I guess I have only a couple of questions:
1. Why doesn't AZ law allow the manufacturing of new machine guns? According to ARS 3-114. Section 4, that kind of weapon is subject to federal law, and federal law since 1986 doesn't allow the legal possession of a machine gun unless it was in circulation prior to May of 1986.
2. Why do we have such restrictions, restrictions that Ronald Reagan signed off on, restrictions no other Republican president since Reagan tried to change, restrictions that even the NRA hasn't tried to change? Why do we make it so difficult to own a machine gun?
Mike, there's a tremendous difference in the danger of criminals or homicidal maniacs with machine guns and those same people with AR-15's. An AR-15, particular in close quarters like a theater or schoolroom is less dangerous than a pistol or a shotgun. Similarly, large magazines are not a threat. Well over 90% of all gun crimes involve fewer than 4 shots. The fantasy of being able to tackle a shooter when he's changing magazines falls apart if you read about the Ft Hood shooting, in which a man with pistols with factory magazines changed magazines several times without any of the people around him (trained in hand-to-hand combat) being able to come close to him. You do know, don't you, that a pistol can still fire one shot while the magazine is being changed.
I do have another comment.....or question!!!! Obama has several Secret Service men armed with semi-auto hand guns protecting him & his family & yet he wants to take away my means of protecting my family! Is he really justified in lumping us all together as 'bad' men! Especially us military folks, as several of his Cabinet members said? I'm 86 today & have carried a gun of one kind or another nearly all my life, Some years as a lawman but most by far as a private individual!! I've only showed a gun 3 times in a stressful situation in my life & that was all it took to protect my family & stop a potentially deadly situation!
Mike, its not "... our “God-given rights” to own guns" its your God-given right to self-defense. This may sound well worn, but when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Or better yet, fear the government who fears your gun.
And by the way, it is perfectly legal to own a machine gun. Do your homework before you write, it works better that way.
The answer to most of this lies in education, knowledge. Unless Mike has the problem outlined by valleynative above, what he said was just ignorant, falling for the myths created by television and the movies portrayal of guns using blanks. Ever shoot a machine gun? I have and it's not even close to easy, let alone if you shoot it too fast, you'll melt the barrel and blow it up in your face. Ever shot a sub-machine gun? I have, again, not at all like the movies. A semi automatic? After thirty rounds fast enough, you can light a cigarette on the barrel. Mike is falling for movie mythology here, children need to be taught about guns, how to use them safely, and to respect what they can do rather than fear myths that make them much more than they are.
"Freedom has a cost as our forefathers were aware and warned. Those not willing to accept those costs are doomed to a future guaranteed to all those who are not willing to defend themselves, and that is an eventual subjection by those in power."
Mr. Fred Rigid Noodle, that price was 20 first-graders, this time.
A tragedy, for sure, which could have been prevented. I still haven't seen a mass shooting at a federal building, a police station, the White House or a gun show. (And don't give me the military base nonsense. Very very few have access to weapons on a military base). If it had been a middle east terrorist with a bomb who walked into that classroom, we wouldn't be talking about banning guns. We would be talking about how to prevent that from happening. And once again, Timothy McVeigh didn't kill 19 kids with an assault weapon. It was fertilizer and fuel oil. Still plenty of that last time I checked.
When the police and military give up their weapons of mass destruction, I'll be convinced it's time to re-think the 2nd. Not going to happen.
Mike has become so paranoid about firearms, he needs to lock himself in a padded room where he will feel comfortable. As to his comment about owning a machine gun, he obviously is aware that he will have to jump through hoops with the BATF and fork over a lot of money after passing a thorough background check. Now, is his Tommy gun a fully automatic version or the run of the mill semiautomatic version available to the general population as is the AR-15 or the MAK 90 semiautomatic version of the AK47? Unfortunately, the left wing liberals are all about disarming the general public. Will they go after those lethal knives next, followed by baseball bats and then automobiles because they can be considered assault weapons? Can we really stand the utopian society the liberals espouse?
There's nothing Utopian about views "other-than" the far right, loud-mouthed Rush Limbaugh types who want it all their way or the highway. The Second Amendment is there so that we the people may bear arms, for protection or hunting or whatever, EXCEPT to shoot down innocent people. Why is compromise such a foreign word to the far right? Not to worry. Gun sales were booming [pardon the pun] as]. soon as the latest SNAFU about possibly banning large capacity clips, ammo was running out and rationed [did y'all protest that, too, or just stand in line multiple times or send in your relatives to buy it for you?]. There's certainly no shortage of armed citizenry, especially in Arizona. The common denominator in all the shootings is the mixture of mental illness with gun ownership. The shooters seem to have large capacity clips when they do their dirty deed.
I agree that no one, in their "right" mind or "wrong" mind, goes up against police stations or military bases or aircraft carriers, for that matter. But, the lack of capacity for understanding that, perhaps, large capacity magazines are not needed for the "normal" use of guns. Now, however, every Tom, Duck [wink] and Harry is locked and overloaded.
Utopia my Aunt Fanny. Common sense is more the happy medium, here. Now, go listen to Rush'n'Rant on cable.
Stupid Spam Filter does not allow the nickname for Richard. LOL.
According to the original conception of Utopia, anyone who wants to rule is automatically disqualified from ever doing so.
Mike, Mike, Mike......the poll on California (doesn't that say it all...[wink]) Senator Diane Feinstein's Bill against Assault Weapons in this very edition of the East Valley Tribune shows that 73% feel this Bill is nothing but "posturing" by the Left-Wing Liberals, Socialist, Marxists, Commie Wanna-Be's and other assorted....Democrats.
Mike, it's time to climb down from your "Mini Ivory Tower" and listen to the "vox populi"....or as you call them....the "Plebians".....lol.
Sometimes it is better to keep silent and let others wonder about you than to open up and leave no doubt. Another "Looney Left" expert who hasthe facts wrong. A 900 round magazine? It best be a misprint. than the actualbelief of the writer.
wow rich, have been watching too many cartoons? my uncle used to work at the rock island arsenal in rock island il. part of his job description was to put enough rounds thru a weapon so as to make it unusable. the first m16 he tested needed several thousand rounds to make the weapon unusable. i do not think you could carry that much ammunition. maybe arnold or sylvester could, but those are not real life instances. and yes i have owned and fired both full auto and semi auto weapons.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people A chicken-argument that takes us down a logical rabbit-hole that we never emerge from and has the virtue of delaying any discussion of gun violence.
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have gunsIt's called a tautology just like "if heroin is outlawed only outlaws will have heroin" and is essentially meaningless. The whole point of passing laws to prohibit something is to prohibit it.
Who give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserve neither...which like a ton of quotes from the Right are so often wrong. The actual quote is
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Note the qualifier "essential". Government exists because we give up a little freedom for security - read Hobbes. The ownership of numerous high-powered firearms with rapid cyclic fire rates is not an "essential" liberty" but a dangerous indulgence.
Finally, the most idiotic of all. That the possession of small-arms by the American populace guarantees our freedoms.No, they don't. The Constitution does that and the customs of a democratic society. And I'd suggest that a government that possesses the level of military technology we do makes such an argument not only laughable but suicidal. To suggest taking up arms against a duly elected US government because it doesn't interpret some right as "absolute" is a nod to anarchy and facism.
Cincinnatus, the fact that a statement is a tautology doesn't make it meaningless.Are you seriously admitting that you don't see anything wrong with only outlaws having guns? You don't seem to understand that "prohibiting" something prevents law-abiding citizens from doing it, but does not stop criminals.
Mike,I see where you were trying to go, with your taking the argument to the absurd. However, you overlooked that it's not only lost on those who see guns as the "great equalizer", but also see them as carte blanche to own, as long as they can afford to pay for them. (Of course, that still keeps the criminals ahead, as they don't have to buy their guns--there's plenty of them out there, just for the taking...)
You also failed to realize that the argument "begins" at the level of absurd, because the people who own guns also see them as symbols of power over the physical world and fate. Might as well discuss religion...it's the same outcome.
The fact that the writer refers to a " 900-round barrel magazine like the one the Aurora shooter used" shows he doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't know what a "barrel magazine" is, but nobody has ever made a magazine that held 900 rounds. Even belt fed machine guns don't use that many shots.
Also, I'm not sure where he heard that NFA firearms are illegal in AZ, but he's just plain wrong. Ask me how I know. [rolleyes]
The result of passing any law to prohibit something will necessarily define those who break it as members of a criminal class. That makes the "outlaws" argument invalid and meaningless. It is like saying "if we outlaw (anything) only outlaws will have/do (anything)" - it's a nonsense statement.
We don't stop making laws because some people will break them.
cicncinnatus, you're misunderstanding. If we outlaw guns, honest citizens will give up their guns rather than lose their jobs and reputations, leaving only the dishonest people with guns.
Laws guide honest citizens and are tools to use when criminals are captured but they do NOT prevent criminals from violating those laws, or there wouldn't be a drug problem or any murders.
You also misunderstand the point of "guns don't kill people, people kill people". The intent is to clarify that the goal of society is to stop people from killing people. If all you do is make it slightly harder for them to get one particular class of one particular tool, the homicidal maniacs and the criminals will simply use another tool.
No one is suggesting we ban ALL guns. There is no legislation that suggests we ban all guns so that's not even a choice. This is about regulation not prohibition.
You also suggests that if the 2nd Amendment is ever struck down through legal and democratic Constitutional processes that gun-owners will not comply. That makes them criminals and in violation of the Constitution they seem to revere so much. It's either citizen or gun-owner at that point. If it's more important to own a gun than perform one's duty as a citizen then the loss of a job and reputation seems fitting.
I understand the "guns don't kill people..." argument for what it is. It is a fallacious attempt to avoid ever addressing the problem of gun violence. When you have 300 million guns in a society the statistical probability that any maniac with a grudge and a couple dollars in their pocket will acquire a gun is 99.9%.
We're buying more and bigger guns to protect ourselves from people who have more and bigger guns. That's the definition of mutually assured destruction(MAD). Insanity. And the more guns we have the less safe we ALL are.
God didn't give us the right to own guns.Nowhere does the Bible say, and ye shall go forth and smite thine enemies with an AR-15. Seems to me the Bible talks about not killing anybody.Texans, go figure.
This is what upsets me the most. When someone who doesn't know what they are talking about try's to tell others their misinformed opinion. Hell, this is what's wrong with all the anti-gunners. Forming opinions without any knowledge on the subject. What in the world is a "900 round barrel magazine"? Even if he meant 100 round, there is no such thing as a "barrel magazine". And where is he coming up with these rounds per minute numbers, 400 for semi, 1200 for full auto? An AR-15 has a rate of fire of 700 rounds per minute, this is only if you have a 700 round magazine and it doesn't overheat. 100 round drums tend to jam, normal mag size is 30 rounds. Fire 30 rounds, reload. Watched too many movies where guns never run out of ammo.
If that is what upsets you most then you have problem.
Because does it really matter? Are the people killed with these weapons any less dead? Is there any good reason for civilians to own or carry firearms with fire rates of 70 rounds per minute per minute much less 700?
The answer to all these questions is a flat No.
Cincinnatus, you've yet to provide any logical argument for your positions, and have consistently failed to understand other people's points, and worst of all, you've twisted words to mean what you want to hear.
Laws always impact "law abiding" citizens more than they do criminals. I believe that you can understand that. If not, there's no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you. Gun regulations will be obeyed by law-abiding citizens, but not by most criminals, so if guns, or certain classes of guns or magazines, honest citizens will be less able to protect ourselves, while the criminals will be just as dangerous.
So, by your logic, we should just issue everyone the latest technology in weaponry, so as to make it a "level" playing field? Do we then call for all the old stuff to be put in museums, or turned in, to be melted down into plows, or something useful?
Yeah, I didn't think so...
Remember, it's the "availability" of a given weapon, that also makes it dangerous, because the availability means a criminal will have them. And, if it's the latest, and most expensive piece, the criminal will always have them, before the law-abiding person, because they don't have to worry about being able to afford one.
If a gun could be made that only would work for the owner, and no one else, would that make a difference?
If you're really so concerned about violence, where is the Obama administration on regulating Hollywood and the amount of drugs administered to children? Oh that's right, that doesn't fit the 3x5 card of the hilarious thought police (MSM).
While the type of gun is important to you there's plenty of reason to believe that the Obama administration overstretches authority and gun control is no exception. They're sure not concerned about the Benghazi or Fast & Furious murders. But then I remember you're the same guy that tells me that `redistribution of wealth` is fine by you.
Valleynative is right. You've twisted words to mean what you want to hear. Piers Morgan was crushed similarly on debate by Breitbart's Ben Shapiro because the left's premise of the argument is flawed.
I don't own a gun, nor care to have one. But I see a tyrannical president that has no intentions of cooperating or leading and will defy the other half of the country that disagrees with him. One chink in the armor of 2nd amendment is all he needs to chip away at this liberty.
mn, do you see any move by Obama on gun control that fits the "tyrannical president" you claim?
Even Feinstein's proposed legislation has a "grandfather clause" that allows existing owners to retain their magazines and weapons.
And your one chink in the armor -- isn't the numerous hoops/restrictions placed on owning fully automatic weapons a "chink in the armor"?
So why aren't you arguing for us to be able to own machine guns without all the restrictions/hoops?
And yes, there should be a more complete study of how repeated, incessant exposure to violent entertainment affects young men. Some studies have shown they desensitize kids. Is it time to restrict or even censor ultraviolent videogames?
Obama should order a study. If he doesn't, he is a sellout to Hollywood.
You're not going to see the threat of liberty by the Obama administration because you're all in on the message delivered by the thought police (MSM). Obama or his national press isn't going to touch the most obvious correction - Hollywood - because that's where his largest donors come from. This issue is as corrupt as any other.
Do I really need to list the destruction of America by this administration? From unconstitutional appointments, executive orders that circumvent the constitution. shoving benefits contrary to faith down institutions throats. The last nail in the coffin will be offering amnesty to 11 million (more like 30 million) illegals that will flood the system to collapse. Better enjoy the benefits now, because once this happens the financial system will collapse. We'll have a permanent Democrat party. Obama isn't a reincarnation of Lincoln. It's more like Boss Tweed out of New York.
Mike----Your arguments are flawed and proven incorrect according to the many posts here. I'm not an expert on gun regulations and haven't a need for a "Tommy Gun". Being taught gun safety at an early age by respected hunters, neighbors, and family police servants, I can attest that a revolver works well for me. However, being the "law-abiding", guy that I am, tell me why I shouldn't be able to purchase a 15 round semi-auto handgun to protect my family and business from the criminal element that seems bent to outperform my 6-shot firepower.
More from Columnists
East Valley Tribune
Phone number: 480-TRIBUNE
Address: 1620 W. Fountainhead Parkway, Ste. 219
Tempe, AZ 85282
More Contact Information...
Please be brief (no more than 250 words) and submit your contact information for verification purposes. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
A Division of 10/13 Communications