By KB

October 25, 2009 11:58 AM | Link to this [an error occurred while processing this directive]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ Defending your rights!

By KB

October 25, 2009 11:54 AM | Link to this

Write your mayor and tell them not to join “Mayors Against Illegal Guns”. It is a group started by Mayor Bloomberg in NY and it is dedicated to prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing or transporting guns and ammunition. You will have to get a permit to transport more than 10 rounds of ammunition in your car. Also, join buckeye firearms association to help keep our freedom.

By KB

October 25, 2009 11:48 AM | Link to this

Michelle, What you fail to realize is that the NRA is funded by “the people”. It is the result of millions of contributions by individuals like me. It is totally different from the liberal/socialist lobbies that have 1 or 2 billionaires behind them like George Soros.

By DDN hater

October 25, 2009 9:26 AM | Link to this

Page 6 of todays DDN. 70 year old woman kills intruder, in Columbus. Good thing she had a gun! It was probably in her purse because her gun nut husband was trying to compensate for something.

By Anti-American Taliban

October 25, 2009 8:39 AM | Link to this

Jim,Benpup and your many other screen names here, you truly are an American-TALIBAN !! We do NOT need this pointless Legislation and the fear mongering you Conservative Republicans are so noted for. Conservatives HATE Obama MORE than they LOVE America- Jon Stewart 10-4-09

By benpup

October 25, 2009 7:44 AM | Link to this

It appears that people do not realize what the 2nd ammendment means. The right to bear arms is given to people to protect themselves from government. We need this right under obomoo and his socialists more not than ever. Tyranny will take hold except for the people that arms themselves against a supressive government. We have in office a dictator wannabee. Good luck with that Changey Hopey thing there liberals. Look at what he is trying to DO to the United States not for the United States. We the people does not mean squat to this Socialist idiot.

By benpup

October 25, 2009 7:43 AM | Link to this

It appears that people do not realize what the 2nd ammendment means. The right to bear arms is given to people to protect themselves from government. We need this right under obomoo and his socialists more not than ever. Tyranny will take hold except for the people that arms themselves against a supressive government. We have in office a dictator wannabee. Good luck with that Changey Hopey thing there liberals. Look at what he is trying to DO to the United States not for the United States. We the people does not mean squat to this Socialist idiot.

By Polite Society

October 24, 2009 3:42 PM | Link to this

Mao Tse Tung: “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938,published in “Selected Works of Mao Zedong,” 1965) Diane Feinstein: “US Senator, If I could have banned them all- ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ -I would have!” (Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995) Adof Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to possess arms. So let’s not have any talk about native militias.” (Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941-44, Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1953) ThomasJefferson:”Lawsthat forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari) George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

By Michelle

October 24, 2009 1:35 PM | Link to this

Gun control laws ONLY affect law abiding citizens.

By responses

October 24, 2009 11:15 AM | Link to this

@read the constitution: since the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment both use the term “the people” in relation to their respective rights, by your logic, the First Amendment does not apply to you individually, but only to the people as a collective. Consequently, if you want to continue freely expressing an opinion here, you’ll need to go join the Voice of America. @grandoug: so when Obama, Biden, and Holder have all stated their intent to permanently reinstate the so-called “assault weapons ban” and close the incorrectly-named “gun show loophole” (in other words, private transfers), were they just joking, or lying? If I say that I’m going to come to your house and rape you, are you paranoid to believe me?

By Leslie

October 24, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this

For those that believe the fed government is not coming after guns and ammunition you need to pay attention to what goes on in the House and the Senate. Everyday these people are looking at at least 20 pieces of new laws. Those of us that want to know what they are doing are on their e-mail list and we get daily updates as to the legislation that is being discussed on the floor. You can also watch them on C-SPAN. Mexico and Holder are working on gun ban legislation for us not Mexico! Legislation on ammunition keeps getting introduced in committees. Instead of insulting people that want to protect their rights, why not inform yourself and pay attention to what the Senate and House are doing. Not from the news, but from them themselves. Get on their e-mail list and look at all the laws they are trying to pass. They want to control and regulate your pond on your property. Do you have well water, well you are about to be controlled and regulated. Don’t tell us informed people that they are not trying to run our lives. You become informed and then let’s have an honest debate. But then, if you agree with Chavez and feel the government should mandate you only take 3 min showers then there is no point debating. You obviously need a parent to run your life.

By Jim

October 24, 2009 8:48 AM | Link to this

This administration and it’s minions are already trampling all over the Constitution. Many states are taking actions to protect themselves from the tyranny that this group is showing. TN just did it together with TX and MT is next and there are other states getting on the bandwagon. They are also opting out of his treasonous healthcare programs. It’s all about control folks and their progressive agenda. I am buying as many as I can.

By Jim

October 24, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this

This administration and it’s minions are already trampling all over the Constitution. Many states are taking actions to protect themselves from the tyranny that this group is showing. TN just did it together with TX and MT is next and there are other states getting on the bandwagon. They are also opting out of his treasonouse healthcare programs. It’s all about control folks and their progressive agenda. I am buying as many as I can.

By smithwesson

October 24, 2009 8:45 AM | Link to this

The guns that need to be controlled are assault weapons.These weapons have no purpose other than to kill people….as usual ignorance has arrived again…ever been to a gun range? Ever went target shooting? I have and not a single person was killed when the “assault” weapons were being fired.

By dave

October 24, 2009 7:50 AM | Link to this

Gun ownership is not limited to a member of the “Militia”. In Heller vs. DC the Supreme Ct held that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right.

By grandoug

October 24, 2009 7:37 AM | Link to this

It would appear to me that those of you who feel that the government wants to come in and take your guns are just paranoid.The guns that need to be controlled are assault weapons.These weapons have no purpose other than to kill people.The argument could be used that people can protect themselves and their families with guns but nobody can justify the need for an assault weapon other than law enforcement or the military.In regards to Reps.Martin and Morgan,they need to concentrate on the important issues and quit trying to perpetuate the fallacy that President Obama or anyone else is trying to infringe on their constitutional right to own a gun.

By NA

October 24, 2009 5:54 AM | Link to this

The constitution says “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.” Webster says a militia is “a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency.” If you want to own a gun, join the National Guard. If you want to understand law and the words used within the confines of it, you dont read websters you read Blacks Law dictionary. Also, as you can clearly see the framing of the second amdement clearly indicates two parts. One an organized militia, and two the right of the people. When you read the milita act you clearly see what was intended and it certainly wasnt to disarm the American people. In fact, when people got out of prison back in the day when the constitution actually meant something to those we have elected, they were provided with silver, grain/rice, and a rifle. Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does not come on the heels of a regulated militia such as the national guard. Can you call the national guard to come in and protect you from unlawful police, a usurped government? No! The people have the right to rise up and throw off its government when it becomes neccessary to preserve life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now how many can live without food, shleter and the ability to defend oneself? Just because their are criminals and the authorities are scared of their shadows doest mean the rest of us should have to submit to a government that was always intended to be of the people, not the corporations.

By NA

October 24, 2009 5:47 AM | Link to this

They want nationalism and not federalism. Which is exactly what the framers fought to prevent while establishing our independence.

By aamericandarnit

October 24, 2009 1:14 AM | Link to this

I’m 56 years old and have owned and collected guns since I was a young man. I’ve NEVER needed one to defend myself or my home. But that doesn’t mean that someday I won’t. The only thing that will stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. Ask Hitler and Saddam and Stalin. Good men with guns stopped them.

By read the Constitution

October 24, 2009 12:26 AM | Link to this

The constitution says “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.” Webster says a militia is “a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency.” If you want to own a gun, join the National Guard.

By read the Constitution

October 24, 2009 12:23 AM | Link to this

The constitution says “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.” Webster says a militia is A well regulated Militia

By earl

October 23, 2009 8:26 PM | Link to this

The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-bye to the Bill of Rights. [H.L.Menchen]

By A is A

October 23, 2009 8:01 PM | Link to this

“More cars kill people than guns…how about we make cars illegal…” Bad analogy, unless you want to incorporate concepts such as car registration and driver’s licenses to gun ownership.

By nullyhead

October 23, 2009 7:29 PM | Link to this

It does not help your cause when people fire their weapons blindly at someone rummaging through their car like that guy in beavercreek. I have kids and I don’t want them to have to dodge your stray bullets!

By Maybe_I_Missed_Something

October 23, 2009 7:18 PM | Link to this

What is the federal government proposing that threatens our gun rights? Is the sky falling to? I have to stop typing now, the black helicopters are circling outside.

By null

October 23, 2009 5:13 PM | Link to this

More cars kill people than guns…how about we make cars illegal…especially since they are not a constitutional right.

By Farrell

October 23, 2009 4:50 PM | Link to this

I can not for the life of me, understand what the BIG deal is for law abiding citizens owning a gun. It shoul be an individuals right to own a gun if he/she wants too, and not have the Federal Government tell them that they can not. We have way to much Government control in our lives now, and we need to get rid of of it NOW

By Mark

October 23, 2009 4:22 PM | Link to this

Being a socialist is defined by your actions, not an arbitrary label. By the actions of the current administration, I would say they are definately Socialist!!

By obama_sucks

October 23, 2009 4:22 PM | Link to this

For you anti-gun folks out there. Sorry to inform ya but I have a Right to my guns. You don’t have a right to your welfare. The reason people who own guns are parnoid that the government is going to take them away is because they have been trying to take them for over 40 years now. Have gun laws ever worked? Nope, the legal gun owners always give theirs up while the criminals keep theirs. THEY ARE CRIMINALS YOU DUMB ASSES. THEY DONT CARE ABOUT GUN LAWS. Liberals are so stupid.

By SocialistHunter

October 23, 2009 4:15 PM | Link to this

No American politician would logically be a socialist because if they were, they’d be out of a job. Bernie Sanders would like to disagree with that uneducated statement.

By obama_sucks

October 23, 2009 4:08 PM | Link to this

As a former police officer I can tell you for a fact that the police department is a reactionary force. Different departments have different response times. There is nothing wrong with responsible citizens having weapons in the home to protect themselves and their families. The federal government has been overstepping their authority for years. Republicans and Dems alike. This law is only meant to send a message to Washington and protect our States Sovereignty.

By rosieo'donough'sspoon

October 23, 2009 4:06 PM | Link to this

I was born and raised here in Ohio by two VERY Republican parents, one of whom loves guns. And yet to this day, I still don’t understand this country’s utter need for guns. Is it because so many people are making up for a major inadequacy? Hmmmm…I wonder if she feels adequate? Authorities in Ohio say a 70-year-old woman shot and killed a man who barged into a hotel room with a gun demanding money. William, your ignorance is showing!

By Mark

October 23, 2009 4:05 PM | Link to this

Don’t forget the “Hilliard” guns show this weekend. Hope to see you all there as It is usually a good one. ops-shows.com/

By mark

October 23, 2009 3:56 PM | Link to this

Just google british police out gunned to see how gun abolishment worked for the british!! renewamerica.com/columns/kouri/051122 …and… policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/120906-Two-British-officers-shot-reopening-debate-about-arming-police/

By CAC

October 23, 2009 3:51 PM | Link to this

First off It is my right to own guns. I have been colleting guns since I was 18 and not one of my guns has taken a life. When the goverment takes your guns only the low life trash on the streets will have them an they really don’t care about the law, there criminals. The people in England were ordered to give up all there guns , now crime is out of control , why because the cruds have the guns. Collecting guns is what I enjoy and will continue to do. I will NEVER give up my guns will not happen.Call me what you want but free men have guns .

By mark

October 23, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this

Actually many states are now using this clause to put a road block in the socialist agenda. Montana,Utah,Texas, SC, Ohio and others are finally showing some backbone. The Feral goverment has grossly overstepped their autority as this was originally meant to curb the sale of wheat by farmers to other states. wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97265 tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/12/firearms-freedom-act-introduced-in-south-carolina/

By Edward

October 23, 2009 3:42 PM | Link to this

When seconds count in New Carlisle, Sheriff Kelly’s deputies may not even be on duty in the City get a gun protect yourself start a petition to have him removed from office

By Kevin

October 23, 2009 3:34 PM | Link to this

I would love for this to be passed. All any of this is, is just another tax. There is nothing wrong with responsible americans owning firearms. The government does not need to know who owns one in my opinion. Some people shouldn’t. But criminals have them, so I have one to protect myself and my family if the need ever arrives. Some people just don’t understand the argument. Next they will want to tax you on how many flat screen tv’s you own, or having to use the new digital broadcasts.

By Mark

October 23, 2009 3:25 PM | Link to this

One last important thought…..”From My Cold Dead Hands” you liberal douche!!

By Brian

October 23, 2009 3:22 PM | Link to this

lol, great minds think alike, Mark. Also William, pay attention to the news. It seems like every week we hear of a story where some nut job walked in to a church, school, mall, etc and started shooting. I’d rather be able to defend myself instead of hoping the shooter will not kill my while the police are on their way. Felons are not rational people and do not care about the laws. They will get their guns however possible. I will also have mine to protect myself and my family.

By Mark

October 23, 2009 3:18 PM | Link to this

william, Apparently your parents did a poor job of explaining the importance of freedom to you. It is my 2nd amendmant right to bear arms. Kind of funny that out of the 27 origianl amendmants,the right to bear arms is #2!! In every state that has passed conceal carry permits, violent crime has seen a dramatic reduction. Criminals will always get guns, but thanks to the Bill of rights, us law abiding citizens will be able to defend ourselves. Just remember, When “seconds” count, police are only “Minutes” away!

By Brian

October 23, 2009 3:17 PM | Link to this

Yes William, we are making up for an inadequacy. The inadequacy of the of the government and police forces to protect individuals (and the fact that is not their jobs). It sounds trite, but true. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. If someone decides to break into my home, I am going to grab a gun and shoot. If someone breaks into yours, you will grab …. what, a phone and call the police while the felons kill your family?

By Tom

October 23, 2009 3:16 PM | Link to this

They are not loading the Jews into rail cars… Nothing bad will happen to them… You’re just paranoid!

By Rich

October 23, 2009 3:08 PM | Link to this

How interesting to see clinical paranoia in action. How sad that it seems to be contagious, much like the H1N1 virus. How depressing to realize that it’s a chronic condition that apparently switches off all logical thought in the human brain. We can only hope it’s curable and not permanent.

By william

October 23, 2009 3:04 PM | Link to this

I was born and raised here in Ohio by two VERY Republican parents, one of whom loves guns. And yet to this day, I still don’t understand this country’s utter need for guns. Is it because so many people are making up for a major inadequacy?

By Voice of Reason

October 23, 2009 2:36 PM | Link to this

President Obama’s worship of the polices of Lenin and Trotsky are what we all expected. I personally like the picture of Stalin going on the $3.00 dollar bill coming soon….it’s just like his administration…..BAD

By Rob

October 23, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this

This is what you get when you elect a hillbilly like Jerrod Martin.

By Interesting @ "Educate Yourselves"

October 23, 2009 2:27 PM | Link to this

Perhaps you should follow your own advice; what you’re describing is communism, not socialism. Thing is, according to the Communist Manifesto, in order to achieve that classless worker’s paradise, the means of production must be centralized and governed by a ruling party…there’s your socialism. In theory, it makes itself irrelevant and we all end up happy ungoverned proles as government control becomes unnecessary. Thing is, when has that ever happened? When has government ever voluntarily dismantled itself? China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea…all socialist states seeking that communist “ideal”. How’d it work out for them? Americans are right to avoid repeating their mistakes.

By c smith

October 23, 2009 2:26 PM | Link to this

as a gun collector this is the best news i have heard guns dont kill nut cases do,,we need this and it shows ohio is on the our side..gee some guns i have never shot,,,but i like them they may save someone

By Tom

October 23, 2009 2:25 PM | Link to this

Does Kim Jong Il live in the same deplorable conditions as the poor (actual poor compared to our poor) people of North Korea? I think not! For “Educate Yourself” to suggest and actually believe that the socialist elite live like the commoners is plain funny. Educate yourself; you may want to educate yourself.

By Jeff

October 23, 2009 2:24 PM | Link to this

Michelle, Here’s further proof… ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

By Alf

October 23, 2009 2:22 PM | Link to this

I think that if a gun purchased in Ohio is used to commit a murder in another state, then it becomes a federal issue, so no matter what Ohio legislators do, it won’t matter. Or in ohter words, it becomes moot, so go ahead and waste your time on a non-issue.

By Brian

October 23, 2009 2:22 PM | Link to this

Michelle says, “We’ve had enough school shootings, enough public shootings in general. The people of America shouldn’t have to worry about being shot anytime they go to a mall, a government building, a post office, a school,” Ok Michelle, try to follow along here. First, as a CCW holder, I can not carry into schools, or school zones, churches, government buildings, mental hospitals, any place marked with a “No guns sign” (Criminal Protection Zones), and a few others. Second, go find me some statistics about how many CCW holders (people who have undergone background checks) and legal gun owners have committed violent (gun related) crimes versus how many have been committed by non-legal gun owners.

By Joe Stalin

October 23, 2009 2:22 PM | Link to this

I heartily approve of any legislation to restrict gun ownership by anyone other than members of the politburo of course. The bourgeoisie has no business owning a firearm whatsoever. I think Barack Obama is a wonderful leader who is in lock step with all of my policies. This administration reminds me of the good old days in Moscow. My friend Nikita Kruschev agrees with me. Keep up the good work Barack. Your Ardent Admirer, Joe Stalin

By Interesting

October 23, 2009 2:21 PM | Link to this

@ Michelle: check John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime.” As for the “Old West”, watch the news; we’re there. It’s unjust to require law-abiding citizens to become easy victims. As for fighting an “18th century sovereign power”, you’re right, it’s not the 18th century; that’s why so-called “assault weapons” are Constitutionally protected. Should “free speech nuts” realize that the First Amendment only applied to Colonial English and moveable-type printing presses?

By resident evil

October 23, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this

Wow! Really brings out the anger. We need a happy medium on this subject. Trying to get rid of guns will not work and no regulation at all is not good either.

By Educate yourselves

October 23, 2009 2:12 PM | Link to this

Jack, just a tiny little bit of history for you. No American politician would logically be a socialist because if they were, they’d be out of a job. Socialism would mean that the population would own and control production and distribution of everything as a whole. Socialism calls for the destruction of the economic classes in favor of everyone being in the same class, economically. So politicians would be no richer than the rest of us. When was the last time you heard of a socialist revolution coming from the top down? It doesn’t. It starts with the people on the bottom and topples the folks at the top. So, it’s fine that you don’t like Obama, but enough of the ignorant socialism claims. Be brave and admit the real reasons that you don’t like Obama and stop cloaking it in lies.

By Michelle

October 23, 2009 2:03 PM | Link to this

If one actually bought the premise that having more guns protects people, then this would make sense. But since there’s no proof that it does, this is just wasteful legislation and obvious proof of the NRA’s power to buy conservative politicians. We’ve had enough school shootings, enough public shootings in general. The people of America shouldn’t have to worry about being shot anytime they go to a mall, a government building, a post office, a school, simply because our government chooses to cater to gun nuts and their misplaced belief that they’re living in the Old West, or fighting against a sovereign power in the 18th century.

By A is A

October 23, 2009 2:03 PM | Link to this

So much for “indivisible”.

By Brian

October 23, 2009 2:02 PM | Link to this

For Christ’s sake … is it possible for a debate to not spiral downward into “You’re an idiot!” “You’re a republican nut job!”??? Grow up already, BOTH SIDES.

By JRK

October 23, 2009 1:58 PM | Link to this

shyra miliner glad you still understood than.

By flipper

October 23, 2009 1:30 PM | Link to this

The liberal, paranoid, socialist left wants every gun in every house turned in. Recreational shooting and hunting are going away. Hope no demorats own guns. Call Elmer Fudd.

By Tired of the NRA sheep

October 23, 2009 1:23 PM | Link to this

I love it when the whiny little gun nuts get their blood pressure up over their misguided paranoia. The higher the blood pressure the less of them, utlimately. Most suffer from micromeat syndrome. Bye bye angry right!

By Interesting

October 23, 2009 1:22 PM | Link to this

@ bill: “Ohioians need protection in allowing the existing gun laws to work”…no, liberty needs protection in immediately repealing gun laws which violate natural, human, and Constitutional rights.

By Shy

October 23, 2009 1:17 PM | Link to this

JRK, First you need to learn how to spell REPUBLICAN, before you refer to all Democrats as idiots! Who’s the idiot now?

By Jack

October 23, 2009 1:13 PM | Link to this

Every tome a democrat is elected to the White House, there is a NUT Job in office. Precisely why we need this legislation. I’m glad you loyal democrats are so trusting of your gov’t. That’s why we are in the mess we’re in! I don’t trust gov’t and I really don’t trust that Marxist in the White House. Everything out of his mouth has been a lie but you sheep still think he is the messiah!

By Bill

October 23, 2009 1:12 PM | Link to this

If my memory serves me right, Ohio only has one gun manufacturer withing it’s boundaries. Why do we need to protect their manufacturing? Ohioians need protection in allowing the existing gun laws to work without continuing change. Buying firearms in Ohio isn’t extremely difficult as it now stands. While the background check is run on every purchase of a firearm it isn’t foolproof but it works. Private sales of firearms should be left alone just like selling a car or anything else. If anything is flawed it’s the Federal government!

By Interesting

October 23, 2009 1:12 PM | Link to this

They’ve also mentioned wanting to close the incorrectly-named “gun show loophole” that allows private transfers of property, thus requiring gov’t oversight of all firearms transfers, effectively registering all firearms - which always precedes confiscation, as seen recently in Australia and the UK.

By Bill

October 23, 2009 1:11 PM | Link to this

Every week we hear the good news” home owner takes out low life during break in” the bad news would be my neighbor shoot’n cans with automatic weapons. some laws are necessary.

By Interesting

October 23, 2009 1:09 PM | Link to this

Montana’s trying the same thing right now. @ BB: well, the feds just said they’re not going to enforce the law on medical marijuana, so that’s not entirely true. The only ones the users/sellers have to worry about are locals now. @ anti-gunners: Obama, Biden, and Holder have already stated their intent to permanently reinstate the gun bans of the 90s. People who believe in liberty are just responding accordingly.

By Overseer

October 23, 2009 1:05 PM | Link to this

Paranioa and guns together make for a happy and wealthy NRA. Why can’t you idiots see your’re being had. Nobody wants your stupid guns, now go play nice little children.

By JRK

October 23, 2009 1:01 PM | Link to this

Actually during his campaign he mentioned like to see moregun control.So all you idiot democrats on h ere blaming repulicans have short memory!

By Beckah

October 23, 2009 12:59 PM | Link to this

“All gun control does it make it much more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms.” I agree with “BRIAN”. If a criminal wants a gun~he/she will find a way to get ahold of it.

By Pragmatic

October 23, 2009 12:56 PM | Link to this

there’s only 1 S in focus.

By cda

October 23, 2009 12:56 PM | Link to this

This is a “no brainer” for anyone who believes in the precepts of our constitutional republic. It’s just a shame that so many citizens have been duped into a willingness to give up their right to protect and defend life and property against tyranny and other forms of harm. The Founders would ask why and how we have allowed ourselves to reach this sorry state!!

By Jon

October 23, 2009 12:54 PM | Link to this

Obama has actually increased gun rights and you are now allowed to bring guns into national parks. These republicans are paranoid and govern accordingly.

By chucky

October 23, 2009 12:51 PM | Link to this

Great idea! i’m for it 100% .

By Jim

October 23, 2009 12:50 PM | Link to this

Bill is right. Obama hasn’t made gun control part of his agenda, yet all the nut jobs seem to think that. With all the other issues we’re facing, why spend time on this? Don’t the republican want to help solve real issues?

By Brian

October 23, 2009 12:33 PM | Link to this

“If you’re going to have firearms and ammunition, ….you ought to be held accountable,” said Hoover. Mr. Hoover, the gun owners who are in favor of this legislation ARE accountable and responsible. All gun control does it make it much more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms. The criminals do not care about laws in the first place, why do you people continue to believe the false notion they will care about your gun laws? This will be a good thing for Ohio, along with the sovereignty resolution.

By Bill

October 23, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this

Every time a Democrat gets in the White House the mental midgets come out of the woodwork screaming “THEIR TAK’N OUR GUNS”..as a long time gun owner I’ve never worried and I’ve always been right. Time to grow up and shut off Lardball and Fox no news…Seth Morgan is start’n to be an embarrassment.

By Chad

October 23, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this

Thank God for checks and balances. Republican nutjobs always talk about state’s right to incite emotional outbursts and conjure up votes to an un-informed public that either refuses to read…or can’t read. Concealed guns in schools, concealed guns in churches, concealed guns in parks! What’s next? Allowing little Johnnie to bring his AK47 (that he got for Christmas) into school because he has a bully problem. He’s got rights!!! And nobody is gonna take them from him! Right? Give me a break.

By Centerville Resident

October 23, 2009 12:31 PM | Link to this

There are more important issues the ohio house should be focussing on than creating legislation to try and block federal regulation on fire arms. Rules specific to weapons and tax on weapons are very loose as they are. A true conservative would focuss on fiscal matters that effect citizens and their day to day lives. One serious problems we have in the midwest and south are state legislative bodies put to much focuss on guns and not issues that will benefit ones state. A true conservative that understands states rights would foccuss their efforts on business and industry.

By BB

October 23, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this

Just like marijuana grown in California and used in California not being subject to Federal Law. Didn’t work then, this won’t work. See, Gonzalez v. Raich.

By Anti-fed

October 23, 2009 12:26 PM | Link to this

Bravo to these two senators! Since interstate commerce is not involved, the federal government has no say in the matter (read the Constitution of the U.S. if you don’t believe this). We need more laws keeping the feds out of our business!

By Leslie

October 23, 2009 12:21 PM | Link to this

Yes it is needed. Just like the sovereignty resolution. This administration is trying to centralize all power in Washington. They want one party one government, they want to dismantle our system. We are behind other states in protecting our rights. It did not take Ohio legislators long to pass a hate crime bill, but when it comes to protecting all of the people of Ohio they are dragging their feet.