Fargo Police Chief Calls For Assault Weapons Ban

ternes

Fargo Police Chief Keith Ternes must not have a firm grasp on what’s actually happening at the legislature in Bismarck. In blasting HB1183, introduced by Rep. Roscoe Streyle and aimed at preventing any state support for new federal gun control laws, Ternes claimed that most law enforcement in the state would oppose the bill:

FARGO — When Fargo officials talked this week about proposed legislation and whether a given bill fell in the “support” or “oppose” category, Police Chief Keith Ternes added a third option — “strongly oppose.”

Ternes relegates House Bill 1183, which he describes as “shortsighted,” to the latter category.

The bill would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from assisting federal authorities in enforcing federal firearms laws passed after Jan. 1, 2013.

“I don’t want to speak for anybody else, but I think you’d find that law enforcement across the state is probably in opposition to it as well,” Ternes said.

It might surprise Ternes, then, to learn that when HB1183 was heard in committee earlier this week there wasn’t a word of testimony against it from law enforcement officials despite plenty of people from the law enforcement community being on-hand. I wrote about law enforcement groups largely dropping their opposition to this bill earlier this week.

Meanwhile, Ternes also seems to support banning so-called “assault weapons,” saying he’d like to see “military equivalent” firearms restricted:

Ternes said his personal view is that some new regulations are necessary.

“If we were having a debate where the suggestion was we are going to eliminate guns entirely … I’m opposed to that. But, I do think there should be some restrictions on military equivalent-type of weapons,” Ternes said.

It’s worth mentioning that Ternes’ boss is Fargo Mayor Dennis Walaker, the only mayor in North Dakota to belong to the rabidly anti-gun Mayors Against Gun Violence group headed by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Walaker said last month that guns were only for hunting, and suggested that the 2nd amendemnt could use some “revisions.”

I don’t think Ternes, or Walaker, are in touch with what North Dakotans want to see on 2nd amendment issues.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • headward

    Would he be willing to lead by example and give up all of his personal assault rifles and the Fargo PD’s assault rifles?

    • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

      Great point. Cops are very good about getting backup quickly. A citizen resorting to a gun is more likely to need a better gun than a cop would need.

      • John_Wayne_American

        Terness does have his shiny new Homeland Security Grant $500K F550 urban assault vehicle to ride in, would they turn that in too?

        Its evil Black too!!

        • SusanBeehler

          You should have more respect for those who are here to “protect and serve”

          • $8194357

            This ain’t your daddys America anymore…
            Barry Soreto

          • Jeremiah Glosenger

            There are lots of law enforcement officers who passionately disagree with Chief Ternes views. Would you also suggest that they fail to respect law enforcement officers?

          • SusanBeehler

            I am not sure what you are talking about. But I think a citizen would rarely need “a better gun than a cop would need”,if the Whistler was inferring he needs a better gun than the cops so he is capable of taking a cop out than it is even more of a disrespectful statement. You think law enforcement think they should not have better guns then citizens? Your question I am not sure who “they” is, did you mean legislators? I thought you were going to let me take your class? You didn’t give me a time and place.

          • joeb

            A ‘better gun than a cop would have’ would not only fire full automatic when selected, but have the grenade launcher as well. That is what the military has, but not civilians.

            New manufacture fully automatic capable firearms have been restricted to sale to law enforcement and military only since 1986, and although older versions can be obtained by ordinary folks, they have to pass the required background checks, obtain the permit and pay the transfer tax, and then buy the firearm–and a used M-16 variant is going to set someone back close to ten thousand dollars.

            New ones won’t put near so severe a dent in a police department budget–only about 800-1200 bucks, because they are not part of a dwindling supply in high demand.
            Of course, both are costs before various accessories are added on, which can significantly increase the tab.

            On the other hand, every household in Iraq is permitted one select-fire (fully automatic capable) AK-47 for self-protection. Why is it our troops have fought to guarantee a right to Iraqis that Americans can only exercise with great difficulty and expense?

          • SusanBeehler

            We are not the “militia”. We do not live in Iraq. You really want a cop to use a grenade launcher? Get real. Go ahead and buy the weapons you listed and put them in your closet so your child can use them on you, it seems to be a trend. Besides I am not arguing the weapon, I am against HB 1183 making criminals out of our law enforcement.

          • joeb

            My children won’t use them on me, whatever I have. Why would they? In fact, why would they do anything wrong with them? They have been taught to respect the arms, to respect life, and to know how to handle firearms so as not to shoot anything unintentionally. But I’m a great grandpa now, and my children have grown up.

          • SusanBeehler

            I bet the father, the mother , the grandfather whose child or grandchild said the same thing. Then they left that gun in a closet, and for whatever reason, maybe fear, maybe anger, that child went and took the gun out of the closet and shot them. So if you are a great grandfather and you have not taught all the children the nation respect, why would you NOT want to take the most dangerous weapons off the market? If you could save one child, one parent why wouldn’t you want to help, to make a difference for that one?

          • joeb

            The reason isn’t fear or anger, it is piss poor parenting. My father kept firearms in a closet, and we all knew where they were. We also knew if we touched them for any reason without supervision and permission we would not go hunting that year. Maybe a father in the home would have made a difference. I can’t teach all the children of the nation respect. That is made increasingly difficult for the fathers who could by the capricious attitudes toward marriage and parenthood embraced by liberals. As for “if i could save one child, one parent”, I suppose we would have banned the automobile, five gallon buckets, gas heaters, and bathtubs long ago. Life isn’t safe, and although we do our best there are risks involved. Yet you conveniently ignore the 2.4 million times a firearm is used to thwart crimes each year, when you say “if it would save one life’.

          • SusanBeehler

            You did mention you are from another generation. The world has changed and a closet is no longer a safe place to keep you valuable “2nd Amendment” right. The most recent case in New Mexico both parents were in the home, both were murdered. Would you pledge to protect your weapon from ever never getting in the hands of a child or a criminal or a someone who was “crazy”? Would you take an oath to defend your Constitutional right by not keeping your “arms” in a closet available to any thief, any child? Would you take an oath to protect your gun? We are not talking all the other things you mentioned, we are talking guns. So what would you do with your gun to make sure never ever a child would be killed by it? What would YOU do?

          • joeb

            I will defend my firearms and my right to own them with my life, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Foolish child, how will you be any safer if you disarm the good people around you? You won’t. Don’t you realize that those living under the Nazis in Europe were disarmed for their own protection. We can see where that led.

            The reason the Founders wrote the protections for our God-given Rights is that they understood human nature. Just the idea that there are people in Government who would take away our civil rights, while practicing those same rights (did you know Dianne Feinstein carried a .38?) is proof enough the founders were correct in protecting the Right.

            You have been enjoying ‘herd immunity’ if you live in ND, because the assumption here is that people are armed.

            Would you put a sign on your door or in your yard that proclaims you are unarmed? That there are no guns in your household? Don’t you think that might make you a target for thieves and other criminals?
            It makes no more sense than herding children by law into enclaves which are by law undefended, and then proclaiming the fact to every nutcase. As I have said in other comments, the perp at Sandy Hook could have committed the crime with an axe or an instrument for delivering blunt force trauma, a spear, or large knife. Who would have been able to stop him?

            Despite how good our local Sheriff’s Department is, the reality is that if someone or a group of someones wanted to break into an occupied rural home and commit crimes, the people there are on their own until that Sheriff’s unit can show up–depending on the weather, an hour, a half hour, but much longer than it takes to commit a variety of very unpleasant crimes.

            If Chicago, New York, Connecticut, and other places which already have stringent firearms laws are not achieving the desired result (reduced crime), but the nation, with the proliferation of concealed carry permits is experiencing a reduction in violent crime, I’d say the problem is far more localized than you, CNN, or the anti-gun people in Congress and elsewhere portray. For those of us who are armed, it is not a cause for panic. Sadly, those who feel helpless and choose to remain that way would reduce the entire nation to their state.

          • schutz58

            militia = «We the People»

          • SusanBeehler

            Your definition: and than whatever We the People means to you
            If their would be no disagreement of what the 2nd amendment said their would be no disagreement. This is why the courts are better to handle this and this is why we have three branches of government because the “definition” means something to one and another to someone else.

          • schutz58

            The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The 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 always remain, in the hands of the people.
            The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. Tench Coxe

          • SusanBeehler

            and your point?

          • schutz58

            come and take em!

          • SusanBeehler

            What is your address, I will be right over?

          • schutz58

            your government brown shirt thugs already have the address.

          • SusanBeehler

            figures another NON law-abiding gun owner

          • schutz58

            sorry to disappoint. no!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Wow… you truly are a misanthrope. Your dim, hateful, view of your fellow man and rampant mistrust is duly noted.

          • HG

            Officers carry “assault weapons”, AR’s to be more exact. My Brother in law just purchased his issued AR from his employer, the Highway Patrol. Feinstein’s ban exempts officers for privately owning the very “assault weapons” she proposes to ban. Why is that?

          • SusanBeehler

            Do you know why they do because the “people” got them first and then they have to have them to defend themselves? I don’t know why you would have to ask Feinstein. I can guess because even if their is a “ban” their will still be these weapons on the streets which will make their way into criminals hand. Police encounter criminals on a daily basis. I am on this blog because I despise this HB1183 legislation. It is a “political game” and I don’t like it because I do not think it is representative of all North Dakotans. I am a North Dakotan.

          • HG

            Criminals will have them. Officers should have them, but officers aren’t the only ones with the right or responsibility of defending themselves against criminals with semi-autos. There is no good reason to exclude law abiding citizens from these weapons.

          • SusanBeehler

            There is no good reason? How about this reason: the gun owners of these weapons were executed for leaving their weapon in a closet.

          • HG

            So everyone must be restricted for the negligence of a no more than we can count on one hand? Officers have shot themselves and that in a classroom. You’re being absurd.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2442_rmiidY

          • SusanBeehler

            And your point is guns are dangerous and even skilled personnel can be injured by them. Thank you for proving a point: guns can hurt people. Good guys with guns can hurt themselves by accident even. RESTRICT your selves or you could face more regulations. REGULATE your own guns, keep your own guns out of the hands of children and criminals and you will not have to be restricted by law. Gun owners are not doing a good enough job to prevent gun violence.

          • HG

            There are far many more auto accidents that take lives every year. Many times a juvenile steals a car and ends up injuring himself or another. I don’t hear any liberals calling for car-control. The percentage of firearm accidents are miniscule when compared to automobiles. The answer isn’t more gov’t control and regulations.

          • HG

            That is no reason at all. Any gun, semi-auto or otherwise can be turned on the owner.

          • Jeremiah Glosenger

            http://jeremiahglosenger.wix.com/self-defense
            Go to my website and send me an email to set it up. Next CCW class is April 20th 9AM. You should really come to the NRA Basic Pistol class though. I’ll try to find a time that works for both of us. Sorry for the late reply. Hopefully you get this.

          • Thresherman

            If the chief of police has no respect for the rights of the public, why should they in turn respect him? Respect is something that is earned.

          • SusanBeehler

            Didn’t your momma teach you anything?

          • Thresherman

            My Mama didn’t raise no fool. Given your response, I have my doubts about yours.

            Incidentally, here is a letter that was sent to Obama by the Utah Sheriffs’ Association on Jan 17. It illustrates the difference between police officers who serve, protect and respect the public and a petty tyrant like Ternes.

            Dear President Obama:

            We, the elected sheriffs of Utah, like so many of our fellow
            Americans, are literally heartbroken for the loved ones of the murdered victims in Connecticut. As Utahans, we are not
            strangers to this kind of carnage- one of the latest being the 2007 Trolley Square murders wherein nine innocents were gunned- five losing their lives.

            We also recognize the scores of other recent domestic
            massacres, which have decimated countless honorable lives. As Americans, we value the sanctity of life. Furthermore, similar to our inspired Founders, we acknowledge our subservience to a higher power.

            With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is
            easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.

            As your administration and Congress continue to grapple with
            the complex issue of firearm regulations, we pray that the almighty will guide the People’s Representatives collectively. For that reason, it is imperative that this discussion be had in Congress,
            not silenced unilaterally by executive orders. As you deliberate, please remember the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to
            protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation.

            We respect the Office of the President of the United States
            of America. But make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respected counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights- in particular Amendment II- has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

            The Utah Sheriffs’ Association

          • SusanBeehler

            I don’t live in Utah, I live in North Dakota and the bill 1183 is being proposed in North Dakota. There is NO executive order taking your gun, the executive orders have been presented and not one will take a gun away and not one bans a gun. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/ Would you pledge to protect your weapon from ever never getting in the hands of a child or a criminal or a someone who was “crazy”? Would you take an oath to defend your Constitutional right by not keeping your “arms” in a closet available to any thief, any child? Would you take an oath to protect your gun? We are talking here in North Dakota. So what would you do with your gun to make sure never ever a child would be killed by it? What would YOU do?

          • PK

            There is an assault weapons ban that was introduced yesterday, where all legal guns must be registered. If it gets close to passing, there’s going to be a lot more sheriffs making some noise.

          • joeb

            How about respecting this? The imposition of new Federal laws on the populace creates an unfunded mandate for local and State law enforcement.

            Regardless of what the hoplophobes out there think, there will be great resistance to bans of existing firearms and accessories and widespread noncompliance.

            One look at Canada’s attempt to establish a long gun registry shows that compliance was less than half, and the expense ballooned far beyond the projected amount. Local and State law enforcement would be stuck with the tab should the do the Feds’ dirty work.

            Out of respect for local and state law enforcement officers, they have far better uses of time and funding than being waterboys for the Federal Government.

      • SusanBeehler

        Why?

  • John_Wayne_American

    Who cares what Ternes thinks, his job is to ENFORCE the flipping laws that are on the books,not push his own agenda,

    I’m so tired of agency rule making and creating problems so they can expand their portfolio’s budgets and staff to “solve” these new problems.

    Case in point, the Police chief in Moorhead yesterday was on the radio “Pushing ” for a registration on Exotic dancers and other “adult entertainers” well good for them, the Coppers get extra “registration funds” so they could hire an person to handle this and the police state grow by another person.

    Same with Fargo’s Liquor industry ruled by the Police dept. ??? The licences are worth like $200K and the tiered system is a joke. But do you think they would give up any “Power” by re-distributing the new sales of liquor licences to those with expensive old ones to bring down the overall value of those licenses? hell no, the Coppers, (not the city commission or planning dept) want the power to tell us when and where we the citizenry can open a bar or tavern.

    Ternes is a big city Cop in a small town, he and the rest of the libs on the Fargo City council of of like minds, the gov can solve all our ills social, criminal and now with “Zero-Kare” physical.

    Comrade Terness, Go back to Fargo and hang some more Orwellian Street Cameras and stay out of our states business.

    All they need is the money and the power. Once they out gun us, they then have the power, after that getting the money is easier.

    • SusanBeehler

      Flipping, I find that funny. “Flipping Arms” protect Flipper!
      So from your post this is no longer a “war” on your 2nd amendment right this is a war on the “cops” because they have the power to enforce laws you do not like and might hinder your “lap dancing”.

      • John_Wayne_American

        no, I can honestly say, I’ve never had a lap dance, my problem with that example is with representative government not representing us, they allow Bureaucratic types and their agencies to foist their rules upon us.

        If a Moorhead city commissioner would propose that, and put his political job on the line as he forwards the bill, no problem ,I can vote him out, but I cannot do the same with the police chief. Notice the Sheriff isn’t the one pushing this? Its a solution looking for a problem. And it lacks a regional approach therefore it will be both expensive to enforce and ineffective.

        • SusanBeehler

          They can’t represent everyone otherwise we would not have majority and minority rulers.

    • Roy_Bean

      Isn’t it odd. when people get killed by drunk drivers they blame the driver not the car, when people get killed by a texting driver they blame the driver not the cell phone. When people get killed by someone with a gun they blame the gun. When you think of all the people killed by drivers using their phone isn’t it time to ask if people really need cell phones? If banning them would save even one life wouldn’t it be worth it?

      • $8194357

        Ideological agenda driven tyrany would explain their little “inconsitencies” .

  • Clairvoyant

    Ternes makes a reasonable call between the nut job extremes from “ban all guns and hunting” types, to the “lock your doors-Obama’s coming for all your guns!”

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Restricting “assault weapons” is not reasonable.

      • Clairvoyant

        how about that “Obamas coming for your guns?”

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I don’t think Obama is going to confiscate my guns, because I think Obama knows that isn’t political feasible.

          I do think Obama wants to make gun purchases and ownership harder so that fewer people do it.

          Is that really so hard to believe?

          • $8194357

            Confiscation is and always has been the agenda of the left.

      • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

        Restricting assault weapons is quite reasonable.

        • $8194357

          Restricting you is reasonable as you “assault” America everyday.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Well, “reasonable” is clearly a subjective term.

          But most Americans agree with me.

        • John_Wayne_American

          So whats next restricting free speech? Only one post from anti-constitutional, nutjob gun-grabbers per day?

          How about prohibiting mass emails akin to automatic weapons, so you have to send out every email in a separate operation..

          • SusanBeehler

            They already do, I should know don’t you agree.

        • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

          Well true assault weapons have been restricted for a long time. You guys want to regulate firearms that aren’t assault weapons by changing the definition.

          • $8194357

            10X
            By definition a assault weapon has selective fire allowing both full and semi auto applications. Full autos can only be owned with a class III
            license purchased on a renewable approval by DC..

          • $8194357

            Define and rebrand the definitions and manufacture the narritive has worked well for the bleeding heart commie cause advocates for a very long time.

        • RCND

          How do you define an assault weapon, and what makes that any different than one you deem a regular one?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Good job RC, that’s a good question.

            I’d argue an assault weapon is one that has a removable mag that holds more than let’s say 10 rounds no matter what shape the weapon has.

            What is your definition?

          • Hoth

            Full auto or burst fire. If it lacks either of those, it’s not an assault weapon regardless of any other features it may have.

          • $8194357

            When used to commit a crime it is an “assault weapon”.
            When used in self defense it is a defensive tool…

      • $8194357

        A club to the head is an “assault weapon”, no…

        • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

          gun nut, we know your not that bright, but don’t be a dick too.

          • $8194357

            I prefer the term…”richard” grasshopper.

      • $8194357

        Calling a semi auto carbine in military costume an assault weapon
        is not reasonable either, but then the left always gets to define the words used and manufature the narritive.
        A semi auto is a semi auto no matter if it “cross dresses”….

    • sbark

      Not a student of history I see………The thing about history—it tells one that you dont even give a govt the chance, the opening, its the deterrant that means more than anything.
      I sure when Ternes took the job…he took an oath—I wonder how that Oath was worded, and if it really meant anything to him—–or was it just words, just speeches to get him by the moment

      • $8194357

        The more things “change” the more they remain the same
        to the lemmings…Blame the fool…not the tool…

        • Clairvoyant

          or blame the people who claim to really Christians, but are not.

          • $8194357

            Leftist hole card…
            Blame the Zionist Jew and Evangelical Christian for all of the fallen worlds sinful evil….Card carrying ember of the ACLU, are you?

          • Clairvoyant

            naw. only the ones who misrepresent Christ

          • $8194357

            What government commission gets to decide who is
            actually mis representing Christ?
            Marxist social justice types like the Revs. Al and Jessie?
            Or a full Gospel Bible believing go and sin no more Pentacostle?

            Jesus alone will judge the true intent of the heart of His followers,
            not you, me, or the state.

            By their fruit and secular ideologies you shall know them.

          • Clairvoyant

            Well, that’s the fun part of being a Christian: We all get to interpret what it all means. We’re all right, aren’t we :-)

          • $8194357

            According to the Scripture…
            Thats called preaching “another gospel”
            than the one preached by Christ.
            Pretty good way to get a one way trip to the goats pen, IMO..

  • Hal414

    Just think what this guy will do when he gets his hands on some drones.

    • $8194357

      The new leftist shiek…
      Blame the tool…Not the fool….

    • two_amber_lamps

      Drones controlling drones… irony at it’s finest.

  • Clairvoyant

    We men think that we can run a restaurant, build a fire and are better at directions that everyone else. Same thing goes with law enforcement. If you haven’t walked in law enforcement’s shoes, be careful what you ask for. Generally the ones who complain about law enforcement have something to hide or be afraid of. Funny how those folks who don’t speed, don’t drive after drinking, and don’t litter their cigarette butts out the car window, have no issues with law enforcement. Why is that? :-)

    • ZwilD1

      Molon Labe Ray

    • RCND

      B as in B, S as in S. We don’t have to be cops to understand their first duty is to uphold the Constitution. It is right in their oath as the first thing in line

      • SusanBeehler

        Not as you interpret it.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      This is the appeal to authority fallacy.

      We can’t question the opinions of law enforcement because we aren’t law enforcement.

      But here’s something Ray: My father retired from the Alaska State Troopers after 25 years on the job, and he agrees with me.

      Does that count? Or are the only law enforcement people who matter those you agree with?

      • Clairvoyant

        there are exceptions. you might even find a vegetarian at a cattleman’s conference. :-)

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Not a single law enforcement officer testified against this bill in committee, and a few testified for it.

          • SusanBeehler

            It was not a few testifying against it, it may have been one, I must of missed who he said he was. The room was full of law enforcement. Do you think people drive hundreds of miles just for the fun of it in their uniforms? Amendments submitted taking making the local law enforcement charged with a misdemeanor to making Federal law enforcement charged with a felony. APPALLING!!!!

      • SusanBeehler

        He agrees with HB 1137. Did he read it? Does he agree with his fellow officers being charged with a crime for doing their job? Does he live in North Dakota?

    • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

      Where did that come from. The comments are disagreeing with his hypocritical political statement not on how hard it is to be a cop.

      This jerk needs to realize that his job isn’t taking away our rights.

      • SusanBeehler

        But you are willing, by condoning this bill, making him a criminal or the federal law enforcement he works with.

    • SusanBeehler

      Like the “law abiding” gun owners holding rallies on our capital grounds or those making comments on Facebook about their guns when they have been convicted of child abuse, multiple DUI’s , failing to register their vehicles, driving under suspension, menacing and some are even commenting while they are wearing the bracelets, you know the monitoring devices. “Law abiding” gun owners will ally with anyone if they are murderers, because they like the look of that guy’s “guns”! Look at the “guns” on that guy, I mean “arms”. I am surprised the “law abiding” gun owners have not hired a “hired gun”.

  • dlao

    Isn’t this the guy who routinely sends minors into bars( guess he doesn’t know that is illegal) to see if they can get some booze? Isn’t this the guy who started sending patrols around town who’s specific job is to find and break up parties? How many people has his department arrested for smoking within 20 feet of a door, cause I have seen lots of it? Shouldn’t surprise anyone he wants to be the only one with an “assault rifle”.

  • $8194357

    When used in a crime….
    All weapons are “assault weapons”, huh…
    A$$hats….

  • John_Wayne_American

    When did Fargo ND, become a sovereign nation that does not have to abide the Constitution of the United States of America?

    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.

    • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

      Johnny, what would be a way to regulate a militia well?

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        You guys always forget the part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

        • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

          No we don’t.
          Same question to you, Mr. Constitutionalist. What are a few ways to regulate a militia well?

          • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

            You can regulate the militia, but that doesn’t take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            If you don’t know how a militia should be regulated just say so.

            Are all gun owners part of a well regulated militia?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            No, they’re not. The reference to the militia part was meant to communicate the fact that you can’t exactly have a militia at all if the citizenry is disarmed.

          • SusanBeehler

            This was due to the fact they didn’t exactly have a militia there were only the citizens.

          • Jeremiah Glosenger

            All gun owners are not part of a well regulated militia. A well regulated militia (not army) is assembled from “the people” who have the right to keep and bear arms without infringement, but I’m sure you already knew that. Please google Switzerland and firearms.

          • SusanBeehler

            Let me see your “guns”.

          • dlao

            how about a regulation stating that all militia members be armed with assault rifles

          • SusanBeehler

            How about you carry the “arms” of the Constitution writers, hmm black powder muskets?? But I am sure they are priced out of this world thus infringing on your right to bear them.

          • $8194357

            How about you leftist apoligist quit using modern marxist PC to explain and criticize accurate history?
            Dr. Quin “medicine woman” was one of your favorite feminist revisions of America perhaps? Cultural marxism has you by the short hairs Susan..

          • joeb

            Don’t forget, those arms included the very best in rifles, swords, pikes, lances, and cannon–whatever was available, just as ‘arms’ today refers to whatever is available. .

          • SusanBeehler

            So maybe some “arms” need to become extinct.

          • joeb

            Why? Edged weapons are used worldwide. The spear, pikes (halberds), and lances are all relatively recent issue, and pointy sharp objects have been used as weapons for tens of thousands of years–to acquire food and defend one’s home.

            Sending a projectile out a tube has become a refined science in the past 500 years, but it is still in vogue planet wide.

            Your apparent objection seems to stem from the lack of trust you have in other people–regardless of the weapon, a good person will not put one to ill use.

            Putting on a badge does not magically make one a better person, although many of those who wear one are great people, but that generally came before they donned the uniform. There are those who make a bad name for the rest, by their actions or their words. All that keeps authority in check, ultimately is the detente which develops from people being armed. Look, historically, at situations where there is a disparity in armament between government and the people, and you will find dictators, tyranny, and ultimately, genocide. It happened in Russia, in Germany and Europe, in China and Southeast Asia (Cambodia), in Africa (Rwanda and Burundei), and even in the Americas. Had those so oppressed had arms, they would not have been slaughtered.

            The pattern is clear.

            All the wishing in the world will not change it, not unless the hearts of men are changed by other means. That cannot be imposed from outside a person, nor by any force humans can bring to bear, Only through the Grace of the Almighty.

          • SusanBeehler

            Look historically what has happened in North Dakota, gun violence is not a major problem. Look historically to the larger cities, gun violence is a problem. You are looking at the history that is not relevant to what is happening AMERICA, look at American history. This is a national problem and selfish North Dakotans want to act like they are a new “confederacy” under the 10th amendment. If I want to live in Mississippi or Alabama I would, but frankly I can’t stand the mindset of somehow we should rescind or we should write a stupid bill like 1183. Don’t bring that “confederacy” kind of thinking to my state and think I will sit back and say nothing.

          • joeb

            Wait a minute. You say gun violence is a problem of the larger cities, then try to make the rest of us, those who do not live in the larger cities pay for the problems of the larger cities. Do a little research and you will find the larger cities, as a rule already have much of the onerous package of firearms laws the ‘nation’ would impose on those of us who do not have a problem. Why don’t we have the same problem? Why isn’t the rural west like the “Dodge City” of the westerns? Because we are armed, unlike the poor sheep of the larger cities who have to go through processes often taking a year or more to obtain a pistol and the permit to carry it. Here, the risk to a criminal is much greater, because there is a very good chance a homeowner is armed. An armed society is a more polite (and generally well-behaved) society. So why would you want North Dakota to be as defenseless and crime ridden as the larger cities?

          • SusanBeehler
          • $8194357

            ( Don’t bring that “confederacy” kind of thinking to my state and think I will sit back and say nothing.)
            Ah…The feminist activist..
            Gun ho radical feminist ideolog.
            You go girl…

            Communist community orgsanizors just love you dedicated
            “cause clowns”. Submissive satelight nation to the stateist big tent central planners…You go girl..

            Take those stone age men to task.
            But for the greater good of course..

          • SusanBeehler
          • joeb

            Wow. Out of 80,000,000 firearm owners you found two statistics. Guess momma didn’t give those kids any home training. Maybe daddy wasn’t home to…I suppose you’d tell me violence in video games and the media had no effect.

            For extra credit, how about googling the number of police shot with their own weapons (by someone else).

            You still won’t change my mind about my guns. If I can’t trust the Government with a checkbook, I’m damned sure not going to give them my guns.

          • SusanBeehler

            No one is coming to take your guns, and this is not about debt. This should be about what gun owners could be doing. So how many children will it take before gun owners will become responsible instead of whine about their rights, what about the rights of those who lose their lives or are threatened because some gun owner is irresponsible with their guns? Those two were just a couple this week. I would hope just as you can’t trust the government with a checkbook, we would be able to start trusting gun owners to be better owners, uncles, fathers and grandfathers. Be responsible and guns will never be threatened to be banned.

          • RCND

            The militia IS the people with respect to the 2nd

          • $8194357

            10X

        • SusanBeehler

          Hence the term “guns” when a body builder bears their “arms”

      • John_Wayne_American

        I would start with gun safety class in all schools, so that the fear of guns might subside a bit, then I would increase the penalties for misuse of guns in the commission of crimes, it wouldn’t hurt to have PBS that we already fund, have a Militia hour every week, so that the public could learn various ways of how to protect there community from threats of all kinds.

        Its a start, I think that since the founding of a regular army and police forces, people have strayed from their obligations as citizens to protect their own property and the safety of their communities relying instead, like welfare dependent moms, on Uncle Sam or Mayor Wallaker to provide; instead of the “traditional” in-house father figure.

        • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

          Those are nice ideas but do you have any ideas about regulating a militia?

          • John_Wayne_American

            It says that, right in the 2nd Amendment, Can’t you read

            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

            To be regulated in those days meant to be well equipped, they did not have formal drills nor did they even have a leadership structure They were counting on a “call to arms.. where by when the community was attacked, say by Indians or outlaws, the call goes out, and the folks leave their mills, stores and homes with their arms to defend from that which provoked the call to arms, beautiful in its simplicity, cost effective and as proven in the Revolution, the War of 1812 and the Indian wars, worked rather well. (Not that I’m a big supporter of the Indian wars, just citing the example)

          • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

            But also they didn’t say you had to be in the militia to keep and bear weapons.

          • SusanBeehler

            They said “arms” not weapons

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            To be well equipped in those days was to have a musket and a bayonet, are you an originalist or is our Constitution a living document?

            Johnny, are you entertaining the goofball notion that a call to arms will be needed here in America anytime soon?

          • Onslaught1066

            Why does it have to be soon?

            Are you progressives planning something that needs to be put down?

          • SusanBeehler

            It doesn’t have to be soon because I think it is great to invest in gun manufacturers and other suppliers like Wal-mart so when the next conversation of a “ban” comes up, I am insured to make alot of money off my investment. (sarcasm) “Ban” is just like yelling “fire” in the theater, it ought a be banned, because the ensuing stampede to the local gun dealers is dangerous; threatens others; and is disruptive to government.

          • Onslaught1066

            So, if there is a fire in a theater everyone should be left to die?

          • SusanBeehler

            No I would hope someone is “armed” with a fire extinguisher or a cell phone to call 911 or the theater’s sprinklers would kick in.

            “Ban”

            Did you go buy some more ammo?

          • Onslaught1066

            Wouldn’t an unexpected shower trigger this stampede you are so worried about?

            No, I think you had it right the first time, let ‘em burn.

          • $8194357

            The ideologies they follow has since their inception,
            been to destroy from within a Rule of Law Republic.

          • Onslaught1066

            Why do you think Susan wants people to die in a fire.

            Could it be because she looks like she was beaten with an ugly stick… that was on fire?

          • $8194357

            Susan is a modernist feminist enigma to me Onslaught.
            I never have understood progressive modernists..

          • SusanBeehler

            When was I incepted?

          • $8194357

            When you bought the indocrtinations as reality..
            Or when you first thought you knew better than your elders.

          • Onslaught1066

            With a face like that?

            Never.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            The constitution doesn’t define the arms. It simply says that we have a right to keep and bear them.

            i’m not sure you know what “originalist” means.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            rube, does the 2nd Amendment guarantee us the right to own RPG’s?

          • $8194357

            Why shouldn’t we grasshaopper.
            What weapons do you think your ideological
            brothers will bring to bear on us when LaRaza, Black Panthers,
            jihadists unite under Barrys communist takeover?
            Single shot muskets?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            You are extrie crispy today, huh gun nut.

            Do go on.

          • $8194357

            This isn’t burger king lefty…
            Ya can’t have it your way..right away….NOW…

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            gun nut, does the 2nd guarantee us the right to our own personal nuke?

          • $8194357

            Why not…Barrys letting the jihadist get them..

          • Jeremiah Glosenger

            The “arms” have been determined to mean the arms in common use by individual soldiers (not crew operated like tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons). See United States v. Miller. That means that the arms that are constitutionally protected (without infringement) are “military-style” firearms like they are trying to ban without properly amending the Constitution as such legislation would require.

          • Hoth

            I would disagree with you on the tanks and missiles. I base this on the clause in the constitution that allows congress to hand out letters of marque and reprisal. This would be a completely pointless clause if congress didn’t expect to find warships (or at least ships capable or waging war) in civilian hands. As far as I’m concerned, if a civilian can own a warship a civilian can own a tank and missiles.

          • Jeremiah Glosenger

            You disagree with the Miller decision not me. I’m simply quoting established Supreme Court precedent that serves as the officially binding interpretation of the amendment. I’m not sure that nuclear warheads were considered at the signing, so if the interpretation of arms broadens to that then we might have to amend those out.

          • Hoth

            The Miller decision says nothing of the sort. In fact, Miller says the opposite, declaring that a given weapon may be outlawed if it has no legitimate MILITARY purpose. In the case of Miller, the weapon in question was a sawed off shotgun. This tells me that civilian possession of military grade armaments are protected by the 2A. Again, see the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11. Congress having the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal is pointless unless it’s assumed that ships of war, or at the very least their armaments (ie cannons – the heavy artillery of their day) are in civilian hands. This requires no interpretation at all, just logic.

          • Jeremiah Glosenger

            To be clear, the Miller decision said that a given weapon may be outlawed if it has no “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a ‘well regulated militia.'” The second amendment is about the militia not the military–that is an important distinction. The decision further stated concerning the militia, “that ordinarily when called for
            service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
            themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” You can take that however you want, but it has been interpreted to mean the kind of weapons that a man being called to service in the militia would be expected to bring with him. That means the interpretation in Miller (and it is just that–an interpretation) can be reasonably assumed to limit the second amendment to arms relating to those that a militia member would be expected to furnish. Intercontinental ballistic missles would be reasonably excluded.
            Your point about letters of marque and reprisal serves to repudiate the Miller limitation to the second amendment (at least for cannons on ships); however, there was nobody making that argument in the court that day and the justices certainly didn’t bring it up themselves.
            Great discussion.

          • joeb

            Sadly, the Miller decision was flawed. Had the Justices been aware that short barreled shotguns had been used in warfare (and continued to be used, even in Vietnam), they would have recognized that all the NFA covered firearms were, in fact, those in use by the military, and the very arms the founders sought to protect the right to keep and bear. Miller had died by the verdict, and the attorney did not go to DC to argue the case.

          • Hoth

            Stupid strawman argument on your part, but no, it does not. A nuke is completely unsuitable to personal defense.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            So, Hoth, there is a limit to what the 2nd guarantees, is that what your saying?

          • Hoth

            Yep, and it’s a long way off from where we stand now.

          • Hoth

            Yes.

          • SusanBeehler

            I am not sure how you define “arms”

          • $8194357

            Weapons to defend self against harm and/or governmental tyrany.

          • SusanBeehler

            butter knifes? the things at the end of your “arms”; hands?

          • $8194357

            That makes about as much sense as anything
            else you’ve posted lately..
            I don’t have a clue what nonsense you babble..

          • John_Wayne_American

            How much has our Country changed since you were born? How fast do things spread? How stable was France just 5 years ago? How stable was Greece just 5 years ago? Egypt?

            Stuff happens quick or it can fester for years, I may never get that call to arms, I pray that I don’t. I may never need fire insurance for my house, I pray that I don’t but I pay every month for that insurance.

            The 2nd amendment is Insurance, Call it “Liberty” Insurance some day regrettably My grandchildren may need it, and because our Constitution acknowledges our unalienable right to bear arms, I will continue to see to it that I pay the premium of vigilance until they are old enough to continue the vigilance beyond me and unto their children and grandchildren.

          • John_Wayne_American

            Additionally, folks don’t have to ever fire their arms to be effective, as shown in this recent debate, the mere ownership, the investment, and the threat of loss of ownership of said property or infringement on its use is enough to garner enough Political force, to make sure those rights are protected.

          • SusanBeehler

            I just wish the new lipstick “arms” was guaranteed under the constitution. Ladies buy multiples too when the threat of pulling the color off the market.

          • opinion8ed

            Are you retarded or just 6?

          • Clairvoyant

            that’s a good point. but I fire mine every fall near the slough.

          • SusanBeehler

            I know, I know it is very “scary” to use the internet and now you have all kinds of “freaks” telling you Sandy Hook was not real, and we are being “assaulted” from our laptops. Get a clue, get some common sense, you are being used by a very effective “lobbying” machine for the “arms” industry, follow the money “Johnny” Do you think they care if you have one gun? No, they want you to by the next one and the next one and they sure as hell do not want to take their best sellers off the market? They are an industry just like cars or whatever, they want you to buy their product, so they are willing to feed you a line of crap about our Constitution because it gives them an untouchable market, if they have their consumers willing to kill their own government, sacrifice their own law enforcement, sacrifice their own children they don’t need laws to do it they have the “Johny” of the world “insuring” they have an endless demand for their product. Would you keep a bull in your home if it was guaranteed under the Constitution?

          • PK

            Wow. Unreal statements there. Well if it’s all about selling products, i’m sure glad i have the right to buy a somewhat military grade rifle, considering the people of every other country in the world can’t, and most of those countries are some pretty hard tyrannies. I am glad to purchase their product, as are most other gun owners, so that’s not the best argument to use. An “untouchable market”, funny stuff. Why is it ok for the government to posses any kind of weapon it wants, but it’s not ok for me to have a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine? Why don’t you spend your time lobbying the government to stop making Level 5 Bio-weapons that have a 99% kill rate? Why does the government need something like that? Why do they need thousands of nuclear weapons, neutron bombs, directed energy weapons, AUTONOMOUS UNMANNED DRONES(look it up), satellites recording video of every inch of the planet at all times and storing all that in databases, video cameras on every intersection, to mandate all the main communications companies route all data through NSA servers? Why do they mandate cell phone manufacturers to make their product capable of being tracked? There’s a high-tech infrastructure in place that could be used for the worse kind of tyranny the world has ever seen. So please leave my right to have a semi-automatic weapon alone. Invest your time in something meaningful instead of being “used” by the powers that be to push their disarmament agenda.

          • SusanBeehler

            What do you do with your semi-automatic weapon? Do you take it for long walks in the park? Do you hide down your pants? Do you take it out and show it off once in awhile? Do you play “army” with your friends? or do you just keep it in the closet so it is readily available for some boy to get it and blow your head off. Why do you think that you are so important the government wants to come and tyrannize you? What makes you so special your “gun”? Why isn’t okay for the government to have a well regulated militia?

          • PK

            I think you’ve had enough to drink. The German society went from a very moral, good place, to a wicked eugenics experiment that killed over 20 million people, in about a decade. You imply as though i worship my firearms, but i just know what the founders said about the 2nd Amendment. I know history and know that 98% of governments have been a form of tyranny and hundreds of millions of people have been murdered by their governments. I’m not anti-government, i’m just an American, sorry.

          • SusanBeehler

            Remember there is a great number of those “German” society who migrated right here to North Dakota. It is the authoritarianism family style into controlling with their guns which allowed the 20 million to be killed. Fear of becoming “them” should not allow us to think everyone is “them”.

          • PK

            Well they were allowed to control with their guns, because Hitler disarmed the people. How can’t you understand that? A tyranny like that can’t happen here if the people have adequate weapons to resist, if that time would ever come. That’s the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I thought most of the Germans migrated here in the 1800s. Are you saying that anyone with German blood is an authoritarian? Guilt by association? Was it right that we rounded up all those Japanese and put them in concentration camps? Should we just round up all the German gun owners right now? If you want Socialism and disarmament, why not just move to the UK or Australia or China, instead of trying to change the only jewel of freedom the world has left? You never did answer why it’s ok for our government to have Level 5 bio-weapons or literal AI terminator-style killer robots. But yeah you’re right, my semi-automatic weapon is a much greater threat to humanity than high-tech governments.

          • SusanBeehler

            German history does not define America’s future, it is the people. A tyranny here cannot not happen here if we do not allow a “mob” mentality to overthrow one group of people or our government. Guns is not what protects us from tyranny it is our thought processes of not allowing someone to control us as Hilter did, with or without guns. Hilter demeaned and degraded groups of people who would not believe as he did, FEAR is the greatest control. FEAR is driving gun owners to believe they cannot perverse their freedom of ownership without force. FEAR is driving gun owners to not try and help find agreeable possible solutions to the gun violence problem in America.

          • PK

            Is it ok, when our soldiers are coming back from war, and they get diagnosed with PTSD, then get their guns taken? Is it right that Homeland Security labels veterans as a potential terrorist threat? You have almost a worship of people in the government, but you don’t understand that most people in the military and law-enforcement know what the 2nd Amendment is meant for. Are all those sheriffs standing up and letting the government know that any new gun laws won’t be enforced in their counties bad, dangerous people? You have a major disconnect, or you’re a Southern Poverty Law Center operative or something. Please get real.

          • SusanBeehler

            “Are all those sheriffs standing up and letting the government know that any new gun laws won’t be enforced in their counties bad, dangerous people?” Where in North Dakota is this happening?

            The point is this bill will make our law enforcement criminals if they attempt to do their job. Do you think that is a good thing? If some of you want to battle the Federal government over this issue, than go to court with the other southern states or Montana or Wyoming. I want to stay a citizen of North Dakota of the United States, I do not want a ‘confederacy’.

            Do you understand what PTSD is?
            You are trying to change the issue we are discussing with 1183. I do not worship government, but I am sure NOT going to stand by while people think we have to bear arms against our America. What do you think the 2nd Amendment is meant for? Is it to bear arms against our American government? This kind of thinking may have lead to the bombing in Olkahoma, and government owned schools. You or I do not know what their thinking was but how do you know they were not buying into the FEAR you are peddling? How do you know this talk of “tryannical” government scared the bejeebies out of them and they acted, they acted with violence on government facilities? You get real.

          • PK

            Have i advocated violence on here? The 2nd Amendment is there so the American people can resist if the government becomes tyrannical. It’s also there so the people can resist an invasion from a foreign government. Have we ever been invaded? No, because no other government is stupid enough to try it, since we’re all armed. Look up what the Emperor of Japan said about invading the main land of the USA. There are scores of sheriffs around the country writing letters to the Federal gov. about it. You accuse me of changing the issue, when i’ve been responding to your comments that have nothing to do with that bill. So it’s good our vets are getting their guns taken and are listed as a potential threat to the government? My belief in the 2nd Amendment caused the OKC bombing? Do you realize how crazy you sound? What schools have been bombed? On this bill, i thought they amended it and most law enforcement are now ok with it. You’re just pissed our state is standing up for our 2nd Amendment rights because you want all our guns taken. Move someplace where there are no guns if you don’t like it here. Chicago sounds pleasant, over 500 murders, more than all our combat deaths last year.

          • SusanBeehler

            The 2nd Amendment does not say “so the American people can resist if the government becomes tyrannical.” Yours and others interpretation who want to defend keeping all “guns” even “guns” they refused to keep from little their children, their grandchildren, and the criminals, than because you refuse to keep your “guns” safe; so more lives are lost all for your trumped up believe in what you think the 2nd amendment is saying to you. The blood is on your belief, your definition.

          • HG
          • SusanBeehler

            Even this link still does not state “so the American people can resist if the government becomes tyrannical” Interpretation is what is disputed.

          • PK

            Have you read what the founders wrote? They define the 2nd Amendment quite clearly. So please, enlighten us. What does the 2nd Amendment mean?

          • PK

            I should specify, have you read what the founders wrote in letters and other publications about the constitution?

          • Neiman

            It does not matter what they wrote in letters and publications, that is part of our problem in America, the Supreme Court think they have the responsibility to read minds and interpret the Constitution in partisan ways. The ONLY thing that matters is what the Constitution actually says and it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms is for “the people” and cannot be “infringed” in any manner, shape or form without violating the Bill of Rights.

          • PK

            Well i think it does matter what they wrote, considering they defined the Constitution in other writing so the meaning would be clear in the future. I agree with your interpretation and can’t believe anyone would think it means something else. That’s why i pointed Susan to their other writings that clearly define what they meant. It’s kind of like referring to the early Church fathers for their interpretations of the Bible. They were the ones closest to the Apostles, so their explanations are rather helpful in understanding what was really meant. The further you go away from the earliest fathers, the more diverse the interpretations. It’s similar with the Constitution. I’m not comparing the Constitution to the Bible directly though, just the aspect of interpretation. I don’t believe the Constitution was divinely written like the Bible as others do.

          • Neiman

            In the early years, no one in their right mind wanted to serve on the Supreme Court, they thought it was a nothing job, because everything was so clear in the Constitution. I am old and cannot recall the details, but it was not long before the Supreme Court carved out a role for themselves by this interpretation approach and the rest is damnable history. If the founding fathers could not say exactly what they meant, we can never trust the Constitution to mean exactly what it says and we are lawless.

            Again, we disagree, we Christians do not rely on the explanations of men for understanding the Bible no matter how close to the Apostles. It was inspired, every word, by the Holy Spirit and thus that perfectly. Further, as God knew our frame and desire to twist words, He presented every key doctrine in many ways, through many scribes (prophets) so that the Bible is, as it would have to be if God exists, fully capable of interpreting itself. It is only when men interpret its clear meanings that men are led astray. When we turn to these experts, other than as they compare the Word with the Word, we corrupt the Truth.

            When we take these simple words and say we must look to other writings to understand them, then we are in trouble, there can be no real understanding of them:

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
            or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
            speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
            assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

            “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.”

            “Make no laws” “Shall not be infringed” Then the words MUST stand alone and if they are not applicable to our times, they must be amended or not changed by a single period or comma.

          • PK

            I get what you’re saying. But i still think it doesn’t hurt to look at what other people thought. I know enough about everything, to know that i don’t know much at all about anything.

          • SusanBeehler

            Have you read Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and fathered children with them?

          • SusanBeehler

            What does the very moral good German society have to do with our second amendment? We allow guns to kill about a million of our people in about 10 years, many of them our youth, guns are not as effective as gassing. I know what the founders thought of slavery. I don’t have much respect for slave owners, they thought people were not human.

          • PK

            Please site proof for your claim of people using guns to kill a million people in 10 years. I think that’s a quite high, it’s more like 300,000 and half of those are suicides, so you can’t really count those. Then about 75% of the remaining are gang bangers killing each other in disarmed cities with pistols because they’re easy to conceal. Cars kill more people. Prescription drugs kill over 10 times the amount of people than guns. And on the founders, they were the first terrorists too right? That’s what DHS teaches. Terribly bad people.

          • SusanBeehler

            You are right that is quite high my multiplication was off, here is the stats for a few years. Suicides do count it is murdering themselves. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html Many of the assault type looking weapons are also easy to conceal. I don’t know what your definition is terrorist is if you want to call them terrorists, I don’t. All the other means of killing is for another discussion, I am talking gun violence.

          • SusanBeehler

            Maybe he is another “Nancy Lanza” the “Americans” are coming the “Americans” are coming! What happened to waiting to shoot till you could see the whites of their eyes? For all those who want to reenact the Revolutionary War, I am sure they have tryouts for who can handle their “arms”

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            This bunch is the fringe of the fringe.

            That’s why it’s so entertaining to read their stuff.

          • $8194357

            Fringe of the fringe huh grasshopper…
            Did ya read the Franklin quotes I sent ya?
            Ignorance breeds tryany apoligist…

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            If anyone here knows from ignorance, it’s you, gun nut.

          • $8194357

            If ya didn’t read the Franklin quotes grasshopper just say so…
            We will understand…

          • SusanBeehler

            Hence they were birthed from “infringed” Born “arms” first. Created with inalienable “arms”

          • $8194357

            Once again Susan shows her ignorance..
            The colonists were out numbered, out gunned and
            had limited supplies of ammo and powder…

            Don’t shoot until you see the whites of their eyes was ment to say;
            “If we are going to win this thing, make every shot count”…

            Dr. Quin “medicine woman” revisionist..

          • SusanBeehler

            Johnny is definitely not a literalist.

          • SusanBeehler

            It says “arms” can’t you read. It is not about the “reading” it is about the interpretation. They were calling on “weapons” on their newly formed government. I support the 2nd ammendment but this distortion that all sorts of weapons can not be “infringed” and somehow it is interpreted as the founding fathers wanted to go after their own government is “unhinging” the constitution so you don’t have to give up your “toy”.

          • $8194357

            So you have all the equipment used in prostitution right.
            What does that make you?

        • SusanBeehler

          Maybe I rather sew a purse. It is not the “fear” of guns, it is the “fear” of the nuts saying the government is coming to get you. We have to become “preppers” like Adam Lanza mom Nancy. She had to get her bushmaster so she could be prepared for the “end of the world” and then she taught her sons all about this, when Adam couldn’t take the “fear” any longer he took and shot up a school and his mom. Maybe the “fear” over came him and he became psychotic. He was only schooled by his mom, complete control; he obviously had a break from reality. Schools are “tyrannical” government.

          • $8194357

            Skools have become mandatory leftist statist ideological indoctrination centers just as Lenin and Stalin said they would…Indoctrinate the child.
            destroy the old culture…Ever wonder why they don’t teach Limited government Constitution classes anymore Dr. Quin?

          • PK

            Yeah my grandparents were crazy, dangerous people because they had tons of canned food and basic necessities. They could’ve lived, and fed our whole family(20 people) for a year. They distrusted the government, just like every other old timer(80+) you talk to. They didn’t have any debt, didn’t believe in it. It’s common sense to prepare for a disruption in society. They lived through a major one. My grandfather served in WWII, North Africa ending in Italy. He saw Mussolini strung up. I’d like to see you tell him everything you’ve been saying on here to his face.

          • SusanBeehler

            That explains your view

          • PK

            No it shows that ordinary people, using common sense, stores food and basic goods just in case.

          • PK

            Many animals in nature are smart enough to do this as well.

          • SusanBeehler

            “animals”

          • SusanBeehler

            Nancy Lanza had the same worldview and her son shot her in the face than went to the Sandy Hook. Nancy was a “prepper” just like you and your grandparents. Many people in the 50’s and 60’s built bomb shelters too, we use to have “bomb” drills. Now we have school shooter drills because we never know when the paranoia will overcome some gunowner’s kid from being brainwashed with the fear and paranoia “the government is coming to get you” . FEAR and anxiety can make some people crazy, it especially affects the children of these people.

          • Hal414

            “kid from being brainwashed with the fear and paranoia “the government is coming to get you””

            What are you talking about? What school shooting was the result of the shooter being paranoid of the government? Your arguments are generally incoherent and sporadic, it is no wonder the legislature shut your mindless ramblings down and asked you to submit your comments in writing.

          • SusanBeehler

            “it is no wonder the legislature shut your mindless ramblings down and asked you to submit your comments in writing.” I thought legislators take up the oath of the Constitution, wasn’t my First amendment rights violated? By the way they were not ramblings, I was reading the 23 executive orders.

            Sandy Hook; the shooter’s mother was a “prepper” it may or may not be a connection. I do know when you talk about things in front of your children or other children they become fearful, some can get anxiety about it. Many children hear the news, a fiscal cliff, shootings in schools, all of these can effect our children and some may react in manners that are dangerous. A gun is & can be used to deal with a “threat” of a real or perceived danger. Since Sandy Hook these children are trying to sneak guns into school, why? to feel safe! Minot closed school right after the shooting because of the threat of bringing a gun to school. Then if they hear grandpa and uncle “Joe” yammering about all this and By God it is my right! Who do you think this children may imitate or want to “please”?

            http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/wayne_county/3rd-grader-brings-loaded-gun-to-school

            http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/25/4031202/hogan-prep-middle-schooler-caught.html

          • SusanBeehler
      • joeb

        Read Federalist 46. The Militia is ultimately controlled by the overwhelming numbers of people with arms, who in a pinch would so outnumber the Militia that they would prevail should someone abuse their authority and seek to establish tyranny through the use of the Army (AKA: “Militia”).

    • $8194357

      (When did Fargo ND, become a sovereign nation that does not have to abide the Constitution of the United States of America?)
      When the Bison won two national championships?

      • John_Wayne_American

        Great!! Are we exempt from ZeroKare now too? Do we still have to file Federal taxes? Can we open our own Casino?

        • $8194357

          hee…hee

          • borborygmi

            arguing that it is going to stop the Fed gov’t from throwing you in the Gulag is farfetched. The last time “the people” went against the Fed Militia. 600,000+ Americans died. To have the Fed Gov’t come to take you away you would mean the military is in the control of Fed Gov’t . Highly doubtful and if it was the disparity between the men, material, and firepower is thousand of time what it was during our Founding Fathers time or during the civil war. Any rebellion would be short lived. If you are living “Red Dawn” time to ground yourself in some reality.
            The last time that an effective as least IMO that gun prohibition worked was the outlawing of fully automatic or at least severly restricting fully automatice was during prohibition. BAR’s, tommy guns weren’t heard of very much as weapons of choice by the bad guys. Argue for personal protection, but to argue assault weapons are going to keep you out of the Gulag, ridiculous. The most positive outcome is the new preppers industry that has grown up around the paranoia. Thanks for contributing to the economy.

          • $8194357

            If you say so gurgle..
            Belch…
            Was that something I ate or you making more noise?

          • borborygmi

            I prefer a butt belch and I do it in your general direction.

          • $8194357

            Your voice has changed but your breath is still the same?
            Hee hee gurgle ;-)

          • borborygmi

            thats pretty funny. TIc Tac suppository anyone.

          • $8194357

            I get defensive for a prostate check.
            Supositories aren’t my thing either.

        • SusanBeehler

          Only if you are a paranoid gun owner!

          • $8194357

            Ben was guilty of modern PC pshyco babble paranoia as well, huh.
            The “religion of secular ignorance” is strong with you leftists.

            Ben Franklin:

            Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.

            Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
            Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

            When the people find that they can vote themselves money,
            that will herald the end of the republic.

            They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
            deserve neither safety nor liberty.

            Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men,
            but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

            This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties.
            A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize
            the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved.

            It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.

            God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the
            rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say:
            This is my country.

            Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God

            Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.
            As nations become more corrupt
            and vicious, they have more need of masters.

          • John_Wayne_American

            Paranoid? as long as I have my guns, Ammo and a clear shot, I fear nobody.

          • borborygmi

            you own because you fear, you fear the bad guy okay, fear the govt come now if they want you they will have you gun or not.

      • SusanBeehler

        When did paranoid gun owners become a sovereign nation?

        • $8194357

          When the Founders gave us #2 idiot apoligist…
          Paranoid diagnosis comes from your 40 hour educators seminar?

          • Hal414

            Are you serious? Susan is an educator?

          • $8194357

            I don’t know, but thats where some of libs get their
            psyhco babble expertise from.

            40 hour yearly educational seminars for indoctrinational purposes..

            Corperate America does the same thing by another name..
            Training or sensitivity training conferances..

            Leaves most indoctrinated marxist PC psyhco babble sheople, IMO.

    • SusanBeehler

      When did “arms” come to mean anything you can buy from a gun manufacturer? I thought arms where valuable limbs of on our bodies.

      • $8194357

        Leftist word play to rebrand to a new generation of sheople apoligists…
        Your so cute Susan….

  • John_Wayne_American

    Assault Weapons..

    • $8194357

      Yup…..
      And the young kids who used the tire iron on me a few decades ago
      opened seven wounds to the head with them .
      A friend of mine with a 357 mag scared em off in a hurry..
      Life on the Res was eventful while drinking for sure..

      • Clairvoyant

        Yeah, right. Let’s see, what else can you make up???? Got it! Tell everyone that you were at Lincoln’s first inauguration party!

        • $8194357

          Looks like I have a new lefty fan…
          B/C Ray..Before Christ and before sobriety
          I got myself into some pretty strange situations…
          I care not what your opinions of me are..

          • Clairvoyant

            A lefty! Wow-I’ve never been called that before. I’ve been called a “right wing bigot” before though. Guess it depends on who I’m calling to task.

          • $8194357

            Wel Ray Ray..
            ya been spouting some pretty leftist liberal
            junk to me..
            Maybe I am just “way out there”, huh.

          • Clairvoyant

            I find great entertainment in watching the sheeple on the left and the sheeple on the right. “We’re” right. :-)

        • $8194357

          So Ray ray..
          Is it common practice among the ‘adventist’
          to call folks they don’t even know liars, or
          is this just your own ‘personal’ quirk?

      • SusanBeehler

        That explains it

        • $8194357

          You betcha Susan..
          Whats your excuse?
          Oxygen starvartion during childbirth? :-)

          • SusanBeehler

            No I am a survivor of a botched late term abortion.

          • $8194357

            Even your own momma didn’t want ya Suzy…
            Ahhh..
            Dr. Phil group hug for Susan…

          • SusanBeehler

            Yup she was a survivor of a botched late term abortion also and her mother before her and her mother before her and her mother before her and so on and so forth

          • $8194357

            Sad family history..
            We all have our “crosses” to bare..
            Or is that being “fake” in your feminist libtard world?

          • SusanBeehler

            Fake

          • $8194357

            Just sayTime for us to part “again”…

            Your obviously in a leauge I am
            beneath and no sense wasting our
            breath on each other.
            Just say no, Susan, when the impulse to respond
            is upon you..

          • $8194357

            Hey Susan…
            Quit playing the leftist femminsit victims card and check out what
            conservitive femminists are up to…
            It pays for you liberals to expand and broaden your perspectives some ,huh. ;-)

            http://politichicks.tv/column/evil-men-kill-not-guns-the-story-of-reuben-samuel/

            Take my email address as a gift from my computor illiteracy on cut and paste.Well ya wanted to shame me for using a screen name anyway so have at it…

  • RCND

    He is a tool for his mayor

  • RCND

    “I don’t want to speak for anybody else, but I think you’d find that law enforcement across the state is probably in opposition to it as well,” Ternes said.

    He better talk to his rank and file then. I know a lot of cops and they are in favor of it for Constitutional reasons, plus they don’t want to get in the ugly business of criminalizing otherwise good people

    • SusanBeehler

      I know alot of them too and they think it is a political game.(serious)
      Yes, they rather have themselves criminalized for enforcing the law or arresting federal agents who just help with the threat to the Minot Air force base and then wanting federal law enforcement charged with a felony because they have a different constitution to uphold. (sarcastic)

  • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

    I think the donut sprinkles are harming his brain.

    • SusanBeehler

      No, he has been taking his vitamins which has kept his brain alert and not sucking on lead bullets or bushmasters which has created “paranoia”

  • http://twitter.com/mattma43 Matt Maier

    I would really like to have someone provide the enumerated powers in the United States Constitution that allows for the infringement my right to keep and bear arms by the Federal Government.

    • $8194357

      They just ain’t there to show anybody…
      It is the rule of matriarchail majority committe
      above the rule of law deception..

  • Andrew Bornemann

    It’s interesting to note that at the hearing on this bill (HB1183) on Tuesday, there was one former police officer who testified in favor of it, and yet NO law enforcement testified against it, despite there being at least 4 officers present. Isn’t that a decent indicator of the general feeling of law enforcement?

    • SusanBeehler

      No

  • SusanBeehler

    Again Rob I don’t recall seeing you at the hearing? Were you there?
    “There wasn’t a word of testimony against it from law enforcement officials despite plenty of people from the law enforcement community being on-hand.”

    Did you ask the law enforcement there why they were there in presence but not speaking out? I did. They are watching to see how this plays out. There words will come when it is an “eminent” threat to their carrying out their jobs, an amendment proposed did pacify them for the day. HB 1183 is short sighted and is only for a “political game”, it is not for law enforcement actually it wants to make law enforcement a criminal if they do their jobs. It is APPALLING legislation!!!!

  • Daniel Mickelson

    If he swore to defend the constitution when he got the job, he needs to be fired at the very least.

    • $8194357

      All of the leftist a$$hats from the county to DC.
      Treasonous behaviour wrapped in false morality commies…

  • SusanBeehler

    I am wondering if any one can answer my question what are the “assault” weapons most common used for besides sitting in someone’s closet waiting to be used on the parents in the home, like in Sandy Hook and in recent shooting in New Mexico? If gun owners so cherish their guns why are they not protecting their guns by locking them up? Why are they so available to the boys in the household without supervision? If you value something shouldn’t you be taking care of it, locking it up?

  • Vugg

    i wonder if MN is interested in annexing Fargo. i say go for it.

    • camsaure

      If God was going to give North Dakota an enema, he would stick the spout in Fargo.

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com Goon

    The good people of Fargo, ND need to dispatch your mayor, he’s a train wreck and unacceptable.

  • Sky Rider

    Ternes and Walaker … 2 more reasons NOT to live in Fargo.

  • joeb

    Can we give Fargo to Minnesota yet?

  • schutz58

    fire the chief and the mayor! how can we win nationally if we have these people in charge locally.

  • two_amber_lamps

    Ternes also seems to support banning so-called “assault weapons,”
    saying he’d like to see “military equivalent” firearms restricted

    Wow… smart guy. Obviously a long time cop and very knowledgeable of the laws… apparently except for the laws regulating the ownership of “military equivalent” firearms. I guess he doesn’t realize civilian AR’s are semi-automatic only? Laws regulating “military equivalent” firearms (ie AUTOMATIC RIFLES) have been on the books since 1934.

    What rock did Fargo find this moron under?

  • micah701

    Take a few steps to the East and live in Minniesota where you belong. The atf already strickly controls anything remotely close to military style weopons. I know I poses 10 ATF class 3 tax stamps. Look at the report that NY state residents will not register their weapons. It is going to be the biggest display of civil disobedience. While there are a large number of police and Sheriff departments coming forward saying the will not allow federal agency to enforce unconstitutional laws in there district. I have a right to own what ever type of firearm i want. I follow the laws and have gone through the atf to own controled items. That is my right, just like your right to be a fat fucking idiot.

  • exsanguine

    It is official: Susan is a moby.

    Can we all please recognize this and cease responding to her?
    mmkay?

  • schreib

    Leave North Dakota and join your Obama loving buddies in Minnesota

  • uncle sam

    The Chief said these military equivalent rifles are too dangerous. First

    off, they are used in less than 2% of all related firearm murders and they

    are not equivalent to that of the militaries. Yes, they are very reliable,

    rugged firearms and they look the same, but do these features equate to this

    firearm being anymore dangerous than say a single shot shotgun or a 22

    caliber pistol, absolutely not! The last time I looked, all firearms can

    potentially kill; but so can bats, knives, golf clubs, and
    fists.

  • MetisMick

    To have a “military equivalent” i.e. automatic, weapon requires special licensing. This guy should know that.

Top