Your tea party cohorts -Tim Jones etal - take Rush Limbaugh's advice quite often.

Wow--talk about absurd--you guys are part of the reason we are a laughable state!!! NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO OWN GUNS!!!!!! The left, I believe wisely, wants to keep military type weapons out of the hands of unstable criminals. Get a grip people--the NRA has you scared to death by their fear mongering. The NRA is a lobbyist group to make sure the gun industry thrives. To them it's only about MONEY!!!!

Ann you need to educate yourself about what you are talking about.
1. Yes they are trying to take away guns. See quote from sen. feinstein, Gov. cuomo, laws proposed in NY, MO, CA and other places.
2. They so-called assault weapons are not military type weapons. They merely look like them.
3. The NRA is a lobbyist group sure. They lobby for their 4 million gun owning members.

Ann,

The bill proposed by Ellinger is what is absurd. Leara knew his bill was whacky when he submitted it. He did it to show how silly the HB 545 by Rory Ellinger is. How unconstitutional do ya think that sucker is? I believe you are scared of a type of gun that looks scary and you arent using your head. HB 545 would keep guns out of the hands of EVERYONE. Regulating us down to a double barrel shotgun DOES fly in the face of the 2nd Amendment. Leaving us regulated down to single shot 22 DOES fly in the face of the founders intent. Do me a favor please. I mean this with all due respect. Please go read up up in our founders own words as to WHY the citizens of this nation are to be armed. The NRA doesnt rule me and i do my research independent of what they say. You wanna get the guns out of the hands of criminals? Punish them harshly and to the fullest extent of the law when a crime is committed with a gun. I promise you there will still be criminals but if you are looking at hard time for life or death for robbing someone with a gun when you could do 3 years if you didnt use one, look and see how many criminals wont be armed. How about we stop our governement from supplying the criminals with guns in the first place. Fast and Furious, Behghazi are two examples and there are many more we dont know about Im sure and have been many in the past.

Oh, Jason B - in another post you claim that the writers of the amendment meant for citizens to have arms equal to those of an evil gub'ment's army's; so...since all that was around in those days were single-shot rifles and pistols - what would be a reason to interpret that the writers meant weapons capable of multiple shots with a single loading?
Unless - unless - it was interpreted by some of them thar "activist judges?" Ya think?
How can you bleat that single-shot rifles "fly in the face of the founders [sic] intent?"
Surely even you recognize that they were ignorant of multi-shot weapons - right? I thought not...
Therefore...

Tom your condescending attitude does you no favors. No one is bleating except you. Ill refrain from name calling.

To answer your question

Tench Coxe: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

At the time they were single shots but the sentiment has not changed. Ill not reply further to any of your venom. I happen to live in a part of the state that cherishes our freedom and yeah I do support SB-150 and similar bills. Thank God we can elect our own representation. Im proud to say up until this year Brian Munzlinger was my state senator. Yeah he is not one you would vote for Im sure but despite what you would like to believe the majority of us outside your urban cesspool dont agree with you.

Oh, Anonymous Jason B - Tench Coxe was writing merely an OPINION; his words were not law. That it was written by him hardly makes it anything more than an opinion. Ergo, his words have no effect as anything save an attempt to justify something else.

As to single-shot weapons, should you and the No Real Acumen Klub hew to the true meaning of the amendment? After all, they had only those weapons which were current at the time; since they knew not of multiple-shot weapons, why should the latter be not merely an interpretation of their thoughts? Ain't their ORIGINAL thoughts sacrosanct? Did the amendment say something to the effect of "...or whatever weapon may be devised in the future"? Did I miss that?
How do you know I do not live in a similar rural cesspool as do you?

Tom Maher you say "Surely even you recognize that they were ignorant of multi-shot weapons - right?"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

This mult shot air rifle was in use back then. If you think none of the Founding Fathers (who numbered some of the brightest and most educated people in the nation) even knew of it, why did they not say "the right to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed"? They used a generic term "Arms" because they knew from history that technology changes over time and did not want to limit the right.

Michael Davis - you are being unrealistic when you mention the Girandoni. It was not invented until 1779 - the Constitution came nearly 10 years later.
The Girandoni was adopted by only one amy, the Austrian, in 1800. I'd suggest you read about it to learn why only one army in the world adopted it.
The multi-shot rifle was NOT in use back then - review the history.
You raise a good point about the word "arms" being used; while the framers were, indeed, some of the best and brightest, inferring that they knew of something which had yet to be invented is disingenuous. They did mistakes; remember slavery?

James,
How do you reconcile "shall not be infringed"? The Supreme Court can make all the decisions in the world, but if they are not pursuant to the constitution then they are illegal according to the supremacy clause IN the constitution.

Federalist Paper #78 (para 10)

....…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Gawrsh - it looks like Mr. Davis, the Constitutional scholar, has hit upon a point ignored by his colleagues and attorneys!
Negate Brown v. Roard of Education ! Bring back separate-but-"equal"!
Negate Dred Scott v. Sanford ! The nerve of that man!
Negate Miranda v. Arizona ! He was a crook, anyway!
Negate District of Columbia v. Heller ! The No Real Acumen Klub is P.O'd!
Negate Lawerence v. Texas ! "Those people" are different, you know!
Negate Roe v. Wade ! Clear the back alleys!
Negate Bush v. Gore ! DEFINITELY!
Negate Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ! Uh-Oh, now you are in the deepest do-do...

In answer to Michael Davis: We are talking about the law here, not theology. The Federalist Papers are just that, papers. They are not the Holy Bible. You can disagree with the Supreme Court, but I don't think you will have any luck asserting that your interpretation of the Constitution should prevail over that of the Court. That's what they are there for. If you don't like their decision, get the decision reviewed before the court again. Until then, it's the law of the land.

He showed the absurdity of Ellingers bill. To me that wasnt a waste of time. The founders were very clear in their intent of what the 2nd Amendment means. They fully intended for us to be able to go toe to toe with a standing army controlled by an out of control government.

Now granted they could not have imagined the heavy arms our military has now, but small arms are what they were thinking of. Even at that we dont have available what the military does just in those terms.

Sir if the feds manage to disarm us, the problems you reference in MO will be miniscule

Say there, Jason B - are you SURE that citizens' rights were not being trampled upon if, as you say, "we" needed equal arms to combat an "out-of-control" gub'ment?
After all those gub'ments had cannons, so citizens should have had access to cannons as well - right? Wha' hoppen there?
How can YOU be so sure they meant only "small arms?" Answer - you can't.

Guess whose cannons the Continental Army used against the British?

That's right, they were owned by private citizens.

Here's a shocker, guns capable of firing multiple rounds were in existence at the time of the writing of the constitution. In fact, the first machine gun was designed and built in 1718.

Yes, the framers of the Constitution took all of this into account. Tom, your argument is invalid.

James,

I do not dispute it is the accepted law of the land. I just think it is wrong. I am not arguing before a court. I was just curious if anyone actually reads "shall not be infringed" and thinks to themselves ....you know...that really means they actually wanted a bunch of regulations and laws infringing the use of this right.

If you interpret something totally different then what it actually is....what is the point of it to begin with?

Oh, Brave (yet anonymous) "Michael" - you are being unrealistic about the first "machine gun" being available and even considered; had it been a viable design, it would have been produced (it was not).
I will grant that some privately-owned cannons MAY have been used against the British. However, virtually all were captured British cannons and those purchased from France.
The framers of the Constitution did not walk on water; they made mistakes in it.
You are being totally unrealistic when it comes to what they meant by "arms." You endow them with a prescience they just did not possess.
"Michael," your argument is invalid.

You know shootings in the streets are not the only gun problems, go look at suicide rates for gun-inflicted wounds. There have also been numerous studies that prove it is more dangerous to have a gun in the house than to not have one.

Most people don't look at the militia act of 1792 or 1930 very often when quoting the 2nd Amendment. Look up my blog post at http://ofallon.patch.com/blog_posts/gun-control-who-has-the-right.
While I did not attribute all passages I did look up the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1930 while writing the post.

Revere Paul,

I work in EMS. Guess how many people dont use guns to kill themselves. Taking guns wouldnt stop suicides at all. There are a lot of ways to kill yourself. I have had and will continue to have numerous guns in my house and the only people it is dangerous too are the ones who would break in. Those "studies" are biased.

Oh, Anonymous Jason B - the "studies" promulgated by the No Real Acumen Klub are not biased?
Say - I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in...

Why don't you read this article and educate yourself a little Jason B

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/us/to-lower-suicide-rates-new-focus-turns-to-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You'll probably just brush it off saying The New York Times is too left-leaning to be credible, even though it's regarded as the best newspaper in our country. Read the article and tell me if you can find any bias.

You trust the police? There's mistake number one.

Oh Brave (yet anonymous) "Michael" - I daresay you would be reluctant to repeat that statement to a LEO.

Maybe hillbillies irrationally fear the gub'ment. The sane majority thinks expanded gun control makes sense.

The sane ones fear the government, and know that they have overstepped and usurped powers they were never meant to have. The irrational ones are those who think disarming the citizens is a good idea. Give up your guns if you want comrade, Ill be keeping mine.

Oh, Anonymous Jason B - you are a law-abiding and patriotic citizen, right?
In the (unlikely) event this bill were to pass, would you break the law? If so, are there other laws which you hold yourself above?
Why would it be OK for the Legislature, through a different bill, to forbid LEOs to enforce a Federal law and you to flout a state law?

T speaks words of wisdom. If you think fear of government is irrational, then you are just flat out stupid.

Tom Maher, you said "If so, are there other laws which you hold yourself above?"

For myself, I consider myself above any man made law that takes away my rights. Would you give up freedom speech or religion if the government told you to?

Ahh, Michael Davis - you would hold yourself above laws as not applying to YOUR sense of entitlement - right?
So "I don't wanna obey this law; in MY perception, it violates my rights - so I won't obey it."
Unfortunately, we don't have a choice in choosing which laws to obey and which laws to flout, based on our caprice.

^ What's more ridiculous is letting ALEC write our laws from afar.

Ahh, Ms.O'Fallon - the bill of which you speak was introduced as a counterpoint to show the ridiculousness of Rep. Leara's bill.
But you knew that and still...

ANNNNDDD Learas bbill was intorduced as a counterpoint to HB 545 to show how ridiculous it was.

But you knew that and still.........

Ahh, Anonymous Jason B - apples and oranges, dear sir.
But you knew that and still...

Ahh, but Elizabeth - I would agree that both bills are dumb, but - if Leara can introduce a stupid bill to show his pique, why cannot Roorda? Are only GOPpers allowed to demonstrate their choler? How does that work?

OT, but I will give you props for being brave enough to post under your own name.

" I agree, criminals should not have guns.. So why should everyone else suffer from the poor choices of such criminals?!"

You really shouldn't be lecturing anyone on poor choices. I would also offer the opinion that perhaps you have other things to be ashamed of besides your country:

http://stcharles.patch.com/articles/police-man-nabbed-for-making-meth-five-months-after-lab-explosion-burned-woman

Typical conservative: It's hard to solve, so why bother.

Typical Liberal: We can't figure our how to stop bad guys with guns so lets pass more pointless legislation on the law abiding citizen.

Curly did have a solution, you just missed it or didn't care or didn't understand.

Ask yourself this: The criminal doesn't follow the 50 guns laws now on the books, why would the follow the 51st?

Self defense is is not barbaric. It is something humans have done since the beginning of life. I wear a seat belt to protect myself if some bonehead t-bones my Escalade. I carry a gun in the hood to protect myself if some crazy feels that Escalade can generate income.

Like curly said, you can't legislate "CRAZY"

^ More defeatism. Sad, really.