Kanawha County resident Terry Knorr said he “no options” but to attend a rally on the steps of the state capitol Saturday morning in support of 2nd Amendment rights.

Knorr says proposals to take away some gun rights are worth rallying against.

“What the government is talking about doing is in direct violation of that amendment,” Knorr told MetroNews. “There is nothing in the Constitution that permits them, without another amendment, to violate that amendment.”

Knorr is a 22-year veteran of the military and he joined about 300 men, women and children at the “Guns Across America” rally led by state lawmaker Josh Nelson.

Del. Nelson, R-Boone, says many West Virginians are scared that a chipping away of the 2nd Amendment will one day lead to a taking away of personal ownership of guns used for protection.

“A lot of us especially here in West Virginia live quite a ways away from any kind of civilization—so the comfort it brings to be able to protect your family means a lot to people,” the freshman delegate said.

Nelson told the crowd through a bullhorn that when he goes to work as an underground coal miner in Boone County and leaves his wife and two-year-old daughter at home she should able to have a gun with more than seven rounds to protect herself.

Knorr says he agrees with President Barack Obama that no single act is going to solve the gun violence problem but he says infringing on a constitutional right isn’t the way to go.

“When you give up one right what’s to stop them from taking another. You’ve got to draw the line before you start,” Knorr said.

Berkeley County Del. Larry Faircloth says it’s a very emotional issue for many West Virginians.

“They’ve learned generation after generation that ‘Hey we’ve got guns in the home. We can hunt with these. We can go to sporting events with these. We can use them for recreation. And now you want to take them away from us? What did we do wrong?’” Faircloth said.

Knorr admits it’s a difficult issue.

“I don’t know the answer,” he said. “But I know taking away the rights or infringing on that right is unconstitutional. It’s unconscionable!”

Del. Nelson says those who took the time on a Saturday morning in January to come out to the state capitol to voice their concern and rally for the 2nd Amendment were mostly just regular West Virginians who don’t like the way things are going.

“People are afraid. It’s just as simple as that,” Nelson said.

 

bubble graphic

42

bubble graphic

Comments

  • Ronda

    I was there as a last resort stemming from my failed attempts to get answers from mainstream doctors regarding
    my stomach issues. For those with unknown food allergies,
    it would help to keep a food diary where you can note your food intake
    as well as describe the severity of your skin condition.

    Here are a few simple ideas I use that you can try to keep your symptoms
    under control in the meantime: Add moisture to your skin with a humidifier.



    my site ... keratosis pilaris

  • Dave

    Do some research. You'll find that in the 1700s "well regulated" meant it worked properly. For example, a well regulated clock keeps proper time. See? So it means that in order for the militia to function properly, the right to bear arms will not be infringed. It's very cut and dried.

  • Jim Tom

    People want keep saying that our founding fathers had no idea of the type of firearms we would have some 200+ years later. Well for those who have done their research below is some helpful information to help you understanding my right as a "lawful citizen". Here is the opening paragraph of the THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968 TITLE 18, UNITED STATE CODE, CHAPTER 44
    TITLE I : STATE FIREARMS CONTROL ASSISTANCE
    PURPOSE
    Sec. 101. The Congress hereby de-
    clares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any un- due or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law- abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably nec- essary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

    In addition out Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government has also provided its Legal Opinion.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, Argued March 18, 2008 and Decided June 26, 2008 states
    The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

    Therefore, I can possess any firearm and capacity magazine because the specifical states that the Government cant place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law- abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

    I think a AR (Armalite, not Assault Rifle) 15 with a 30 round magazine offers me and my family the best personal protection. It is my right as long as it is for "Lawful Purposes".

  • Runger82

    The people of USA elect officials who represent them. When the majority of one party outvotes the majority of another party, the bigger majority wins the election. It is the way of representation. The Constitution says what everyone says it says. No person is suggesting abolishing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. There are many who either are ignorant of how the abolishment would take place or who like to confuse others by rhetoric. The facts are that if anyone who desires to kill masses of people should not have the guns to enable that person. Second, when children die with up to 11 bullets from one gun, the majority of people feel something has to be done. Again, no one is taking guns away from anyone, the representatives are being asked to consider legislation which would regulate the manufacture or sale of specific guns and related ammunition. Everyone should agree--while attending a movie, or giving a speech, or attending school, and some mentally challenged person wants to kill large numbers of them, they should have a bigger chance of survivor than when the person uses a gun with 30-100 bullets per round. As a nation, we must look at guns differently, but to confuse the issue with biased rhetoric will get nothing accomplished. Cars, knives, alcohol, oranges, sticks and stones have no place in this debate.

  • HMAALLTHEWAY

    I wish someone on here would say what the real problem is ! The problem is a cultural shift as a nation. How many mass shootings in schools took place 60 years ago? I belive, if I'm not mistaken, hand guns were availible that held multipile rounds as well as shot guns and rifles. So, why didn't some kid take one and go to school or the work place and start taking lives?
    Its because we as Americans have gotten away from family and Godly values to create a society where "anything goes" and we call it a progressive society!
    The ones we should really feel sorry for is those people who where a part of the greatest generation. They have had to set and watch a country become something they do not recognize any longer. I dare say if they were aksed most would probably say "this is not the America I fought for in the European Theater or the Pacific Theater."
    They fought for a country that valued the family, belived in hard work, and believed you "deserve what you earn."

    Now we place very little value on family structure as it once was.
    Now we have people who could be millionares if they worked as hard at a chosen profession, as they do at figuring out how to use the system and not work at all.
    All I know is I sleep fine at night knowing I have tried to "old School" my childern with the pinciples this country ONCE had. The rest we will leave for the politians and the interest groups to work out.

    "We can't always control what happens to us in life but we can control how we deal with those things"

    God Bless

  • Dave Jackson

    The NRA is endorsing treasonous anarchy as a means of political expression, with its instruments being no limits on the weaponry available to anyone who wishes to participate. As a hunter this is madness, plain and simple. Equating government fiscal policy with "tyranny" is ludicrous.

  • calvin stackpole

    The biggest fear of rightful firearms owners is the radical left wingers in congress and the senate. They want all guns banned and confiscated. Give them an inch and, well you know. And before anyone jumps down my neck. Look at Feinstein, Schumer and the rest of the gun grabbers in Washington. They will not stop. And my personal opinion is, if someone is intent on mayhem. They will find a way. New laws will not deter them at all. Our goverment is a joke. Cant agree on anything.

  • Dave Warnick

    There was also a large protest rally in Martinsburg outside Manchin's office to let him know that he had let West Virginians down and we won't forget.

  • Dave Warnick

    The stupidity in additional gun controls is that they don't work. One of the new requirements is more efficient background checks. When Biden was told that the NRA supported more efficient background checks, he said that they did not have enough time to do background checks now. Was that the truth or just another "Bidenism"?

  • jj

    Sara, read the federalist papers and writings of Samuel Adams, Hamilton, Madison. Do some research and you will see for yourself what the founders intended for the second amendment. Just reading the bill of rights leaves it open to interpretation. Read what the founders actually said about it and become educated.

    • Sara

      What I have read by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who actually wrote the "militia" clause support my interpretation of the amendment, which is, in and of itself, pretty clear for someone who has basic knowledge of the political climate and history of our nation's birth. But thanks for your suggestion anyway.

      • J

        "The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

        "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

        "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

        "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46)

  • Dave Jackson

    Ask the people of Newtown, Connecticut how they feel about gun regulation.

  • Sara

    Gallup polls, which are take no party money and are not connected to the government, report that 74% of people are in favor of banning assault rifles and 53% are currently in favor of Obama's proposals.

    • Dave Warnick

      Since these polls are geographic in origin it is easy to slant the results.

      • Sara

        To my understanding, Gallup places calls nationally.
        http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx

        Not that I'm holding Gallup polls above all, just trying to present some extra information for conversation purposes. Too often, I find people imagine others to think the same way they do.

        And, since Gallup seems to be independent, I'm not sure what purpose they would have in slanting information. Although you are correct in pointing out that looking at sources in funding for different media outlets and polls is important.

    • Todd

      Drink Government kool-aid much?

      • Sara

        Again, if you have any well vented facts, I'd be happy to read them. Without a reasonable argument, it looks like your the one drinking the kool-aid.

        • Shawn

          So, just because someone tells you something that makes it a fact?

          • Sara

            Shawn, I suppose you are referring to me. The percentages I presented are from an organization that polls thousands of individuals to extrapolate American sentiment. It's hardly the same thing as simply being told something by joe blow and accepting it as fact. I encourage everyone to ready a variety of arguments about any given topic, especially because these topics are hardly black and white.

      • RHytonen

        Watch all Fox, and nothing but Fox, much?

  • John

    Banning is not the answer, but something needs to be done. Mandatory backgrond checks, mental health checks, waiting period, and get rid of the gunshow loopholes. The ATF needs to get their act together, its nothing but a joke.

    • RHytonen

      And "banning guns" has NOT been proposed - except for large magazines and military assault weapons.

      The founding fathers could LOGICALLY never have intended us to have anything they had not seen.

      By the way, they also outlawed violent overthrow of the government (and murder for any reason.) To claim the founders intended us to have the right to overthrow the goverment they were creating, except through democracy (voting;) is patently insane.

      What they intended was that we could hunt with muskets and carry them to protect the country -in a militia.
      I'm fine with that, and so is everyone else.

      They had no idea we would create weapons of mass destruction, and were wise enough that they could not conceive of humans being THAT stupid- or that evil.

      Some of us are unfortunately not that wise - and those of us who are, need to be protected against them by outlawing those 'tools' most intended strictly for murder.
      (Yes, war is murder.)
      They are not appropriate for hunting, and certainly are not toys.

      And again, the violent overthrow of the goverment IS -and should be- ILLEGAL.

      • john

        Did I use "banning guns"...read before you write.

  • L Gill

    Where does the goverment get thier poll information? They say 80 percent of americains want gun controll. All of the polls I have been on say they don't want any more gun controll. Looks to me like the goverment is not telling the truth. I am sorry I missed the gun rally.

    • John

      Most of the population does want gun control.

  • Sara

    The Second Amendment states: "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." In other words, it means that a regulated militia can bear arms to protect states. It refers to states (through regulated militias) being able to protect themselves from the federal government.

    In recent years (2008 and 2010) the Supreme Court has ruled that the amendment allows the individual rights to keep and bear arms. Not really what the founding fathers were intending.

    I'm not against the second amendment by any means. I want there to be the possibility of a military force outside the reach of the federal government. However, I'm sick of people waving around the Second Amendment as if it actually says they can have a gun or have whatever type of gun they want. That is just ridiculous and it makes their cause look ridiculous. They would do better by actually presenting some facts and figures regarding gun protection during home invasions, etc.

    Also, why on earth would someone need more than 7 rounds to protect themselves? Are they expecting a herd of zombies?

    Right or wrong, nothing has happened that is, in and of itself, unconstitutional.

    • Don Jr.

      Sara,
      Evidently, you have not heard the recent news story of the mom in Georgia who defended herself and three children from an armed home intruder using 6 rounds fired from a .38 calibur handgun. The intruder was hit five times and still managed to escape to his vehicle, but was ultimately captured. If you do not wish to own a gun or defend yourself, that's your business. But if other law abiding citizens choose to excercise their 2nd amendment right and enjoy legal uses of their guns, including self defense, that's their business and not yours or any other fearful liberal. Just for the record here, the national guard is definately not what the second amendment is talking about. We need to lock up criminals in this country and stop harrassing the law abiding citizens that only wish to exercise their rights as our forefathers have paid such a high price for, this includes the second amendment.

      • Sara

        Don Jr.,
        How, then, do you define "well regulated militia?" Please, please look up the word militia on the internet.

        As I said above, I have no problem with individual gun ownership within reason; however, holding up a misreading of the second amendment is not doing this argument any favors.

        We always here rare cases. That's why they are in the news. Recently a woman in Beckley offered an armed intruder a hot meal and he left. That's one particular case that I'm not holding up to justify any one particular view.

    • Todd

      "They would do better by actually presenting some facts and figures regarding gun protection during home invasions, etc." - really? Try reading the bill of rights for once instead of listening to Chrissy Mathews slanted diatribes.

      "Also, why on earth would someone need more than 7 rounds to protect themselves? Are they expecting a herd of zombies?" Because its not up to YOU or the GOVERNMENT to decide how many rounds I need to defend myself or my family. If you don't like the Constitution or United States, I hear North Korea has superb anti-gun laws, enjoy.

      • Sara

        Todd, I have read the Bill of Rights, as I mentioned in my post. Maybe you could explain how you think they assure an individual has a right to have a gun instead of attempting to insult me.

        Even if you slant the Second Amendment to include individual ownership, it says nothing about the freedom to own any type of "arms" they want. Shall we all parade around with explosives? Where do you feel line should be drawn?

        • Chuck

          You don't have to slant the Second Amendment to include individual ownership. The second part of it clearly states "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." When the Bill of Rights says "The People" it means an individual.