2013-01-04T20:15:53Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/79410 2013-01-04T20:15:53Z tag:opencongress.org,2013-01-04:/comment/261094 Patriot16 I think that it is disgusting that these politicians exploit tragedies to advance their unconstitutional anti-2nd Amendment agenda. They will try to convince us that we should sacrifice safety for liberty. If we fall for their propaganda we will have neither safety nor liberty. The 2nd Amendment provides a check and balance to the Government protecting free citizens from potential tyranny. This right is not to be confused with hunting and sport. These politicians have an invested interest in disarming the public. Remember that when they say "you don't need that to hunt." They are not to tell us what we need or don't need.They are to serve their country, constituents, and follow the Constitution of the United States! 2013-01-07T01:17:12Z tag:opencongress.org,2013-01-07:/comment/261118 SherlockHolmes67 Gun control only serves to benefit the criinals and create government tyrany. Gun control has destroyed many countries while allowing tyrants to keep power. Look how well gun control worked for Hitler. The Democrats are the new Nazi party. 2013-01-10T17:17:27Z tag:opencongress.org,2013-01-10:/comment/261164 530i This seems absurd on its face. If you already own them, you become a criminal without taking any action. Once law, they can't be transferred, so they would have to be destroyed? More importantly, where does the federal government derive the authority to say what we can and can't own? This can only be done at the state level. Possession certainly does not affect interstate commerce, the Feds favorite catch-all. ...maybe its in the Good and Plenty clause of the constitution... Also, is the goal really just to reduce the body counts at mass shootings, as this Bill suggests? 25 dead is too much, but 10 dead is a number gov't can live with? How about stop advertising schools as Gun Free Zones where mass shooters know their will be no resistance. 2013-01-15T22:28:23Z tag:opencongress.org,2013-01-15:/comment/261191 molonlabe Firearms with magazines with greater than 10 round capacity are necessary to defend against the tyranny of the federal government. 2013-01-23T17:16:56Z tag:opencongress.org,2013-01-23:/comment/261240 Kickedout http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.today.msnbc.msn.com%2Ftoday%2F50208495%2350208495&h=ZAQGyr2KV 2013-01-22T18:08:14Z tag:opencongress.org,2013-01-22:/comment/261227 Kickedout The man or woman is the killer. Be it by hand, knife , fire or gun , what needs to be looked at is the ease that some many people go right to killing. So I guess it is ok to kill 10 people? The sponsors of this bill have never seen reload drills? I prefer a shorter magazine less things to catch on and it makes a more stabile support for sighting in game. 2013-01-25T22:37:10Z tag:opencongress.org,2013-01-25:/comment/261266 ryanesexton I oppose any bill that tries to limit my Rights. Support of any Bill that infringes on my constitutionally protected rights is punishable under USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 241 Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section … may be sentenced to death. Feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to give you a primer on the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and what the term Freedom means. Sincerely, SSG Ryan Sexton United States Army 2013-01-25T22:37:19Z tag:opencongress.org,2013-01-25:/comment/261267 ryanesexton I oppose any bill that tries to limit my Rights. Support of any Bill that infringes on my constitutionally protected rights is punishable under USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 241 Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section … may be sentenced to death. Feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to give you a primer on the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and what the term Freedom means. Sincerely, SSG Ryan Sexton United States Army 2013-02-08T23:27:25Z tag:opencongress.org,2013-02-08:/comment/261401 md123180 SSG, First, I will say that I agree with your points wholeheartedly, however, you forget one thing: to change an amendment or law, it has to go through congress. They are looking at instating a law, which at face value, does not interfere directly with the second amendment. It does, however, go completely against the grain of the intent of the second amendment and limits citizens' rights to choose their implements of defense. That is, not to mention the lack of thought while preparing this legislation... Finally, I understand that you would like to present your views in a credible manner. However, I will tell you now to not utilize your rank or position within the armed forces as a point in an argument. By doing so, such as your sign-off, your views can be misconstrued to be that of the Army. If you are questioning what you can and cannot talk about in official capacity (using rank and position), talk to your PAO. Sincerely, Your peer University of Science, Music, & Culture 2013-02-27T06:35:44Z tag:opencongress.org,2013-02-27:/comment/261530 SMLArmory @md123180, Who asked you to comment on the SSG's comments? You sound like the part of society who feel the need to tell people what they should or should not do. And I doubt you are even close to being his "peer". Who are you to tell him what he can or cannot say? MOLON LABE 2013-02-27T06:36:46Z tag:opencongress.org,2013-02-27:/comment/261531 SMLArmory You keep doing what you are doing. I support your views. SEMPER FI