2nd Amendment upheld
 

By now every one should have heard the decision handed down from the US Supreme Court on DC vs. Heller... where the court finally issued it's decision on gun rights by saying that Heller has a legal right under the Constitution to keep and bear arms. This is a great win for those of us who support the right to carry. Now if we can get the law changed where we can claim that our sleeper area is derived as our home and that we need the right to protect it just like we do our physical address. That would be a huge win for 2nd Amendment Rights

There are no FMCSA regs saying you can not carry in a CMV. The "problems" are that most carriers do not allow it, many warehouses and factories prohibit firearms on their property and you have a lot of varying state and local laws that make keeping a firearm in the truck virtually impossible and be legal doing so.

In order to get past some of these issues, namely the laws, there would have to be some kind of mandatory reciprocal agreement for gun permits in all states and local jurisdictions or some kind of federal permit program. This is assuming the sleeper of a truck would be considered a "home". Otherwise the permits would have to be of the carry variety and not just ownership.

Re: 2nd Amendment upheld
 

Originally Posted by cableman:
By now every one should have heard the decision handed down from the US Supreme Court on DC vs. Heller... where the court finally issued it's decision on gun rights by saying that Heller has a legal right under the Constitution to keep and bear arms. This is a great win for those of us who support the right to carry. Now if we can get the law changed where we can claim that our sleeper area is derived as our home and that we need the right to protect it just like we do our physical address. That would be a huge win for 2nd Amendment Rights

The right to carry had no bearing in this case. Nor do I see it having any effect on the right to carry.

kc0iv

Well if you want to carry a fire arm then you need a concealed weapons permit or you have to leave it right on the dash in full view so it can easily be seen.

Also note that carrying a firearm across a boarder might get you in trouble.

Originally Posted by Rat:
Well if you want to carry a fire arm then you need a concealed weapons permit or you have to leave it right on the dash in full view so it can easily be seen.

Also note that carrying a firearm across a boarder might get you in trouble.

So.... what is your objection to having it on the dash in full view? The BEST "protection" against a gun nut, is full disclosure! :lol: :lol:

Personally..... I'd like to know ahead of time that the BBR who wants to kick my azz, for pizzing on his tires, hasn't got the b@lls to do it with his fists, and plans on bringing his Constitutionaly protected right to OFFEND with arms along WITH his big mouth! :lol:

I also hope that it will be mandatory for him to display a sticker in his window saying that he is armed.... so I can park somewhere ELSE so as not to be accidentally SHOT while he's practicing his gun twirling skills! :roll:

This is indeed a GREAT day for Texans.... and for all others who ASPIRE to BE a TEXAN! It is just one more example of what a free hunting trip with the V.P. can do to influence the opinon of an otherwise partial Supreme Court Appointee!

Scalia is Cheney's "beyotch" and there is no doubt about it! :roll:

At least it is evident to anyone with an INDEPENDENT point of view!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Double post

Triple post! Sorry..... this hasn't happened to me in MONTHS! Don't know what happened! Must've shot myself in the head while cleaning my gun, and fell over onto the submit key! :lol:

So what you are saying is it is wrong to own a firearm? If you feel that way then move to Canada or another country were the people have no rights.


This is america and the 2nd amendment gives us the right to hold and bare arms.

I don't carry anymore but when I was hauling cars as an O/O I had a Ruger Blackhawk .45 LC with a 7 inch barrel in my truck.

Hey when you have high end cars on the trailer then it is better to protect yourself especially when traveling through places like New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis and other big hostile cities.

I don't haul cars anymore but if someone wants a load of Potatoes then they are welcome to them. Wendies might get a little upset when they run low on French Fries though.

Between the various comments I have read around the WWW there are a lot of people who truly have no clue what the supreme court ruling really means.

All this ruling says is that it is unconstitutional for cities, states, and the feds to make a blanket ban on firearms. In other words they can not come in and say...No handguns, as DC, Chicago and a few other cities have done.

What will probably happen now though is that these cities will end up passing ordinances that say something like no handguns over 22 caliber and no automatics or semi automatics. :roll:

Originally Posted by Rat:
So what you are saying is it is wrong to own a firearm? If you feel that way then move to Canada or another country where the people have no rights.


This is america and the 2nd amendment gives us the right to own and bear arms.

I don't carry anymore but when I was hauling cars as an O/O I had a Ruger Blackhawk .45 LC with a 7 inch barrel in my truck.

Hey when you have high end cars on the trailer then it is better to protect yourself especially when traveling through places like New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis and other big hostile cities.

I don't haul cars anymore but if someone wants a load of Potatoes then they are welcome to them. Wendies might get a little upset when they run low on French Fries though.

Assuming you are addressing ME, Rat.... NO. I am NOT saying that! What I am saying is that this whole case was SUPPOSED to settle the issue of what IS meant by the 2nd Ammendment.... and I don't think it DID!

The decision was pretty much an EVEN split! That does NOT show ME that the highest court in the land could come to an EASY decision that would settle the argument! It shows me that they are as political as they can BE..... and that Scalia wouldn't have an "independent" thought if Cheney ALLOWED him to! :roll:

"I" have never said that the 2nd Ammendment doesn't give Americans the right to bear arms. I have said that the meaning was unclear, concerning the "militia" aspect, and that I'd LIKE to see it clarified once and for all! I don't see that it WAS, exactly. I have ALSO said, that BECAUSE it was unclear, those who tout it as their basis for argument, were basing their argument on THEIR interpretation of it. I WANTED to see the Supremes decide the issue one way or the other. I don't see a "political" split decision as having DONE so!

I have ALSO said that, EVEN under the NRA interpretation of it, it did NOT say that there could be no "restrictions" on the types of arms, and I still don't see that there CAN'T be.

I'm not sure that we got our money's worth out of this ruling! There may be MORE questions NOW than before!

I will ACCEPT this "political" decision by our Supreme Political Court as at least deciding that the Militia aspect doesn't apply, and therefore ALL citizens have the right to bear arms. I have NO PROBLEM with that. However, I still contend.... and am not convinced otherwise..... that local or state governments do not have the right to place "restrictions" on the types of arms a citizen can bear.

As KayCee said, this decision has NO bearing on the CCW laws. Therefore, doesn't really address the issue of "bearing" arms! I have NOT had a chance to fully investigate the ruling and its consequences yet, but.... it appears to me that the only thing decided was that HANDGUNS cannot be "restricted" by a local jurisdiction as they fall under the general description of FIREARMS. It says NOTHING about semi-auto rifles, maximum capacity "clips" or anything else.

Personally, I don't have a problem at all with citizens owning handguns! The D.C. ban had NO EFFECT anyways, since the guns were readily available from just outside the city limits!

I am, and WAS, mostly just interested in DEBATING the issue, and having it settled so a bunch of MORONS would stop claiming they had a right to own any and ALL forms of assault weapons and the like based on their interpretation of a badly worded ammendment to the Constitution. And if you think that THIS ruling has clarified that in "your" favor, then I suppose the next step will be a class action suit against the government for wrongful death in the case of WACO!

But, I can just about guarantee that THIS decision will NOT provide the precedent necessary to WIN such a suit!

Personally, I was sympathetic to Heller's case! And I am PROUD of my country and it's Constitution that ALLOWED him his right to "petition the government for redress of greviances!" (can't remember off the top of my head which ammendment that was,) but it shows that our system WORKS! My disappointment is with how Politically divided the court was!

My comments about Texans and BBR's was mostly in jest.... and you should lighten up a bit! I really can't STAND this attitude of "like it or leave it!" People who say that, basically mean that you can like it the way "I WANT IT TO BE" or get out. Well, I risked my life in the military to protect your rights.... AND my own.... to debate what IS the law of the land!

I suppose you are a staunch Conservative. No problem. But, you probably can't stand the "entitlement" mindset of the welfare system. But.... right now, THAT is a law of the land! You don't LIKE it?? Why don't YOU move to Canada or somewhere else?? :roll:

Doesn't sound "fair" does it? And "I" would NEVER say that to you just because we might disagree on a subject of law. So, GROW UP.... and leave that playground Bully crap to the kids!

America was FOUNDED on the rights of individuals to disagree about politics! MANY have served and DIED to protect that right. For you, or anyone ELSE, to say I can "love it or leave it," is the HEIGHT of ignorance and despotism! Such an attitude pays a disservice to all the men and women who lie under little white crosses all over the world! As an American, I would be ASHAMED to ever utter such crap! :roll:

But, that is part of the problem today..... too many Americans have no idea what being one MEANS! I am NOT surprised! :roll:

Hobo

Well, I am a firm believer that I should beable to own any type of firearm I wish to desire or can afford. I am building an AR15 personally. I also own a Norinco SKS and would not give it up for the world.

Some of these so called bans are going to outlaw alot of semi automatic hunting rifles also and that is not right. Heck I can make a Ruger 22 into an all out assult look alike with a 30 rd banana clip.

I hunt and target shoot along with all around plinking with most everything in my cabinet.


As for the Welfare thing. It should be abolished along with other free money people get. I am sick of my dollar supporting lazy arsed people. I am sick of my dollar supporting migrants also.

It just burns me that I have to work as hard as I do to have the things that I have only to see people not having to work and having nicer things then I do.

Originally Posted by :
Well, I am a firm believer that I should be able to own any type of firearm I wish to desire or can afford.

So were the "nuts" in Waco! :roll: Now... I'm not saying they intended some sort of action AGAINST American troops, but what if they had been a Muslim Terrorist organization? You STILL think that anyone IN America should have the right to stockpile assault weapons? :roll:

Originally Posted by :
Some of these so called bans are going to outlaw alot of semi automatic hunting rifles also and that is not right.

If you NEED a "semi" to kill a deer, you need to take up "air hockey!" :roll:

Originally Posted by :
I hunt and target shoot along with all around plinking with most everything in my cabinet.

What is this "plinking" thing? I'm not familiar with the term? I don't REALLY want to spoil you fun. I just want to save lives! Sounds to ME like you should enlist in Dubya's War and go "plink" a few terroists! IF you have the B@lls!

Originally Posted by :
As for the Welfare thing. It should be abolished along with other free money people get. I am sick of my dollar supporting lazy arsed people.

And "I" am sick of MY tax dollars going to support tax breaks for the rich who don't NEED it! AND, for corporate America who will use them to send jobs overseas, so they can get RICHER! :roll:

Originally Posted by :
It just burns me that I have to work as hard as I do to have the things that I have only to see people not having to work and having nicer things then I do.

I understand this, really I do! I am all FOR "welfare reform" as President Clinton proposed! I don't see that President Dubya has even spent a day THINKING about it! His time is consumed with thoughts of bombing countries populated with "brown people" especially if they disagree with his Religious beliefs! :roll:

Wars cause INFLATION! For economic reasons, if nothing else, they should be the LAST resort.... not a planned governmental policy, as this war has been PROVED to be! :roll:

When our government stops spending Billions of dollars on this "trumped up" war, I will listen to yoiur complainst about a few Millions spent on welfare.

Deal?

Originally Posted by Uturn2001:
Between the various comments I have read around the WWW there are a lot of people who truly have no clue what the supreme court ruling really means.

All this ruling says is that it is unconstitutional for cities, states, and the feds to make a blanket ban on firearms. In other words they can not come in and say...No handguns, as DC, Chicago and a few other cities have done.

That isn't what the ruling said at all. Sheesh, and you have the nerve to call other people clueless. :roll:

Some people just don't get it I quess.

Plinking is going out and shooting cans or other things you don't want anymore.


Semi auto deer rifles are actually nice shooting. They have less kick which gives better target aquisition if you should miss while shooting at a whitetail deer that is moving across a field in double overdrive.


Dubya's war as you call it is not about the color of skin and yes it is a religious war of sorts. It is a war to keep ours and others freedom to seek any religion we see fit without having to worry about someone taking others or us out or slicing off our heads because we are infidels and don't worship Alla.

As for enlisting. Yeap I did that. US Marine Corp, 1989. Was sent home on a medical discharge.

So go try stomping on someone elses feet for a bit there buddy.

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago:

Originally Posted by Uturn2001:
Between the various comments I have read around the WWW there are a lot of people who truly have no clue what the supreme court ruling really means.

All this ruling says is that it is unconstitutional for cities, states, and the feds to make a blanket ban on firearms. In other words they can not come in and say...No handguns, as DC, Chicago and a few other cities have done.

That isn't what the ruling said at all. Sheesh, and you have the nerve to call other people clueless. :roll:

For the most part what I said is accurate. All this ruling means is that it is unconstitutional for the government to have blanket bans on types of weapons. The case ended up at the Supreme Court because of a law suite challenging the DC handgun ban which a lower court ruled that the ban was unlawful.

Originally Posted by :
In a 5-4 ruling, the court found that the right to bear arms does not apply just in connection with service in a militia, as some have claimed, but rather is protected in a much broader context. The court upheld a lower court’s decision that an outright ban on handguns in Washington – which had the country’s strictest gun control legislation – was unconstitutional. In other words: if you wish to keep a gun at home for “traditionally lawful purposes�, including self-defence, you may.

From HERE
Which is just one of hundreds of news accounts of the ruling.

Now if you have a different opinion on what the ruling says or means then please share it.

The ruling had nothing to do with Chicago and "a few other cities". :roll:

I along with millions hoep and pray that we can stop this needless removal of our firearm rights. background checks are fine in my book but to deprive me totally of owning the types of firearms I care to own is unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Rat:
I along with millions hope and pray that we can stop this needless removal of our firearm rights. background checks are fine in my book but to deprive me totally of owning the types of firearms I care to own is unconstitutional.

Rat, this is a rational response, but I STILL have to point out a couple of things.

1) YOUR book is okay with me.... but, NOT with the NRA and the "gun lobbyists." They want NO background checks.... OR only an immediate one. They won't stand for a "reasonable" backgound check of a few days! EVEN with computers, there are too many chances for people to "hack" the records, for example, and come up "clean" on a QUICK check! IF you have no "CRIMINAL INTENT" in buying this weapon, you should have NO objection to a FULL background check that can't be easily "skirted."

THIS KIND OF PRACTICE is what allowed the 9/11 terrorists to get access to the planes that caused so much damage that day! The Consitution (actually the Bill of Rights) gives you protection against "unreasonable search and seizure." It does NOT give you carte blanche against REASONABLE investigation by authorities as to your "RIGHTS" (which CAN be restricted,) to purchase or OWN a firearm!

2) The fact that the Constitution gives you the RIGHT to own firearms, does NOT prohibit the government from placing "restrictions" on the types of "arms" you can own and bear. I have the "RIGHT" to pursue happiness... but not at 100 mph on the freeway! :roll: There will ALWAYS be "restrictions" on our rights. But, I hope those BASIC rights will never be revoked.

3) I'm an avid photographer. I LIKE taking pictures. But, the government has the RIGHT to "restrict" me from taking pictures of certain "secret" facilities. They can't take away my right to OWN a camera, OR to take pictures.... but, they CAN place restrictions on it! This is what our Legislators DO (when not taking a junket at our expense!) :lol:

There has NEVER been ANY form of "government" in all of history, including that of Ghengis Khan, that didn't place SOME restrictions on its people! The most BARBARIC of societies lived under the "restrictions" of some "power" that protected its OWN interests. GET OVER IT!

Rat said:

Originally Posted by :
Well, I am a firm believer that I should be able to own any type of firearm I wish to desire or can afford. I am building an AR15 personally. I also own a Norinco SKS and would not give it up for the world.

I am NOT trying to "assault" your beliefs, Rat. You are welcome TO them, as long as you will give the same respect to MY beliefs. "I" am of the belief that the Constitution provides you the right to own firearms ONLY to the extent that they are necessary for your personal protection. (the Militia rationale having been STRUCK DOWN.) I am no longer dependant on YOU to "protect me" from invading armies, therefore.... your only "defense" is against rodents and burglars! OR the desire to HUNT!

I really don't CARE what you are "building," but I question your attitude that you wouldn't give up what you HAVE for ANYTHING in the world..... including the LIFE of your child who might get caught in the "crossfire" of gang violence, or the lives of OTHER "innocents" like those at Virgina Tech! :roll:

I guess YOUR "rights" are more important than CIVIL order! :shock: :roll:

Originally Posted by :
Some of these so called bans are going to outlaw alot of semi automatic hunting rifles also and that is not right. Heck I can make a Ruger 22 into an all out assult look alike with a 30 rd banana clip.

I'm not concerned with "look-alikes," that is for you BBR's of the gun world! But, IF that rifle would be "operational," then THAT is why we would want to BAN the "clips" and accessories so readily available for people to make JUST such a "conversion." :roll:

Originally Posted by :
It just burns me that I have to work as hard as I do to have the things that I have only to see people not having to work and having nicer things then I do.

I understand this, really! Which is why I'm against tax relief for the RICHEST in America.... who don't NEED it.... at the expense of myself, OR "social programs" that would allow the poorest among us to rise above the poverty level and become "middle class." I am NOT talking about welfare "giveaways" here.... but programs to END welfare and help the lowest of Americans rise to a level that they CAN be "self-sufficient" TAX paying Americans!

I don't want to take ONE SINGLE DOLLAR away from YOU.... if you NEED it and EARNED it! I am SOLELY against the "class warfare" system that our current (Bush approved) tax system encourages. HIS idea that only RICH people start "small businesses" and provide JOBS is B.S!!

Rich people don't create jobs.... they send them overseas so they can get RICHER! POOR PEOPLE who manage to rise above indebtedness and servitude, with MEAGER government loans, are the ones who start "small businesses" and create such "jobs!" :shock: :roll:

But YOU guys call this "Socialism!" :roll:

Let's try THIS.... Let's say the amount of money realized by Bush Tax credits to the Rich, will instead be placed into an INTEREST bearing fund and doled out ONLY to former welfare recipients to start a new business!

They will receive "mentoring" NOT from some "Publicly funded agency" but by some "charitable" organization like the Kiwanis! So SUCCESSFUL "conservative" businessmen will GUIDE the business investments of the poor who don't really WANT to be poor, in a "capital investment" enterprise like YOU think you earned YOUR money from!

This reduces the roles of welfare, stimulates the economy creating REAL jobs (instead of shipping them overseas,) and doesn't cost YOU any money that wasn't YOURS to begin with!!

NO..... THAT wouldn't work! Too much like FREE Enterprise, American Dream, and SELF PRESERVATION for you "Conservatives" to understand! :roll:

Better that you just keep WHINING about taxation, while you destroy the commerce of the average Man, and continue to BLAME them for the lack of jobs while importing Illegal immigrants to take their few remaining jobs! :roll: :lol:

I REALLY don't understand you guy's concept of the Economy! It is going DOWNHILL under your leadership, yet you STILL stand by your "model" EVEN while your own "leader" (with the lowest ratings in history) has FINALLY (as a lame duck) admitted it is "not going well!" :lol:

He even "flip-flopped" on his message about the "purpose" of his "economic incentive" checks! One week, he was touting how we could spend it a Walmart to STIMULATE the economy.... and a mere two weeks later, he said... "OR PAY for the increased cost of gasoline and fuel!" :lol:

In other words.... here is some GOVERNMENT money to compensate for my FAILED ECONOMIC POLICIES! :shock: :roll: :lol:

You "lie down with dogs.... you wake up with fleas!" I get a KICK out of watching you "conservatives" defend the policies of your LEADER! The one with the absolute WORST "presidential ratings" in the HISTORY of this one time GREAT Nation! :roll:

Oh, wait a minute.... you don't ACTUALLY "attempt" to defend his policies.... you just keep blaming ALL the problems on the Liberals! :lol:

[Edited]

You Conservatives RENIGGED on your "contract with America," and you have continued in your FARCE! But, now the truth is out there for all to see! If things don't CHANGE in the next decade....."I" may move out of this dysfunctional country! :lol:

Oh.... but the IMPORTANT thing is.... you'll be able to keep your GUNS! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I live in a small town out in northern North Dakota and there is no such thing as "gang" violence here so I am not worried about my daughters getting caught up in crossfire.

Actually my three daughters are pretty good with a rifle. The 12 guage shot guns kind of throw them a bit with heavy waterfowl loads. My oldest handles my Ruger Blackhawk .45 lc with a 7 inch barrel prety good also. She is 16.


I am one of your northern rednecks and have grown up with firearms all my life. got my first .22 lever action at 8 years, my first 20 guage pump action at 10 years and received a beautyful 12 guage pump for trap shooting and upland game at the ripe old age of 13.

I collect firearms that are fully operational. I have every firearm I have ever owned since I was 8 years old. My newest intrest is the "Black" guns, or weapons such as the AR15 etc and muzzle loaders or black powder.

If it moves and is edible then I hunt it when the season allows.

I am not one of them militia types that has dugouts and bunkers setup in the woods.

I hunt, fish, ride atvs, use my 4x4 pickup as intended and dabble in radio controlled aircraft and electronics.

Don't like me because I own firearms, I could careless. Try and limit what I can own then you will have a fight on your hands. If I want to own a 50 cal snipper rifle for the soal purpose of shooting old appliances out at the range then that is my choice. Nothing more fun then trying to bullseye from 500 plus yards out.

First, let me apologize for making that last post sound like I was mad at YOU personally. I just get carried away sometimes talking about "SOME" Conservatives that are the most vocal about their beliefs and stuff.

I don't hate ALL Conservatives. It just sounds that way sometimes. :lol: Really.... the ones that make me the maddest are the "talking heads" on Fox who continue to distort everything ANY Democrat says, and blame everything on the Liberals! But, I can't talk BACK to them!! So, I come on here and show my butt! :lol: Oh yeah.... and I listen to Patriot radio on Sirrius alot! MAN.... some of them guys are "warped!" :shock: :roll:

Rat said:

Originally Posted by :
I live in a small town out in northern North Dakota and there is no such thing as "gang" violence here so I am not worried about my daughters getting caught up in crossfire.

That is nice, for you. My beef is that "many" Conservatives seem to take the opinion that, if it doesn't affect THEM.... it's not an ISSUE. Problem is, it IS an "issue" throughout America.... and only the Dems seem to CARE about that! I don't have a daughter to GET caught in the crossfire. But, I care about OTHERS' daughters! :wink:

Originally Posted by :
I am one of your northern rednecks and have grown up with firearms all my life. got my first .22 lever action at 8 years, my first 20 guage pump action at 10 years and received a beautyful 12 guage pump for trap shooting and upland game at the ripe old age of 13.

I don't have any problem with people who like to own guns. I have lived "up there / out there" and understand why you like them. I just don't share your enthusiasm. But, THAT is not why I argue about gun control. I am concerned with the social issues..... and I just like debating the LEGAL issues. :wink:

Originally Posted by :
I collect firearms that are fully operational. I have every firearm I have ever owned since I was 8 years old. My newest intrest is the "Black" guns, or weapons such as the AR15 etc and muzzle loaders or black powder.

I have no problem with people who like to collect them, either! But, if there is a gun that society deems too dangerous for just ANYONE to own, then I resent that "collectors" are so intent on THEIR right to collect, that they don't care about the risk to society. I have a RIGHT to that opinion, don't I?

Originally Posted by :
If it moves and is edible then I hunt it when the season allows.

I am not one of them militia types that has dugouts and bunkers setup in the woods.

I hunt, fish, ride atvs, use my 4x4 pickup as intended and dabble in radio controlled aircraft and electronics.

That is all FINE by me! And I'm GLAD you are not one of the "wackos!" :lol: Unfortunately.... they ARE out there, and THAT is why "we" feel we have a right as a society to impose SOME restrictions. WE are looking for some compromise that doesn't completely trample YOUR "rights," while allowing US to address gun violence in America.

Originally Posted by :
Don't like me because I own firearms, I could careless. Try and limit what I can own then you will have a fight on your hands. If I want to own a 50 cal snipper rifle for the soal purpose of shooting old appliances out at the range then that is my choice. Nothing more fun then trying to bullseye from 500 plus yards out.

I don't dislike YOU at all, Rat! Nor anyone ELSE that chooses to own firearms. Can't we disagree in our opinions without hating each other? "I" don't make the laws of the land OR enforce them. If you end up with a fight on YOUR hands, it will be with the U.S. Military and other agencies who DO enforce the laws! And, I hate to burst your bubble, but... like the Davidians.... you will ultimately LOSE if it comes down to that! Of course.... THAT is my opinion! I'm sure YOU would disagree! :wink:

BTW.... other than the cold up there, I envy you your peaceful life in North Dakota. Haven't spent much time in N.D., but I LOVE driving thru S.D, and Montana! I certainly am NO FAN of living in the SouthEast as I do currently! My best years were the 6 I lived in Colorado! "Plink" away, my friend! :wink:

The problem I see is the difference in types of gun control we share or I share with others.

I feel there is plenty of gun control right now other then the background checks could be harsher.

That and stop the illegal sale of firearms without background checks.

Each and every buyer should have to go through a background check that goes through the buyers complete history including any phycological checks.

I also feel that no one should beable to come across our boarder with any firearm of any sort without it going through our FBI first.

We already have laws against fully automatic firearms and that is completely fine with me. You can own them in certain states but there is alot of red tape you have to deal with to own them legally.

But to ban certain firearms all together because they may be considered assult weapons is ludicris (sp). Also banning clips that hold more then 5 or 10 cartridges is ludicris also.

It would be like banning polished aluminum on a truck because it might blind someone or fully banning straight pipes because some pin head insists on using the jakes while rolling through town with them.

When used responsibly these things do not hurt anyone and why should I be limited to things when others are iresponsible.

Simply put, Guns do not kill people. People kill people. There are litterally millions of responsible firearms owners out there that are being punished due to a few thousand idiots.

The democrates want nothing more then to unarm the american citizen and tax us because their democratic run house has spent too much money.

Don't go blaming Bush for this either because to be honest his hands are basically tied when it comes to most anything because he can't do anything with out the house saying so. If the house wants him to do something then he had better do it one way or another.

Like our little war. Had he been able to go over and get r done then it would be over and done by now. But no the house says this and that or this will happen and look at what we have now.

Hew wanted to spend a little money to get r done rather then a ton of money to just drag our feet. Well we ended up dragging our feet and spent a ton of money because the house would not allow the initial moneys to be spent.

We need to start using our own oil and the Dems say no. No drilling. Use our money to develop electric cars and trucks instead. In the mean time we will keep sending money to the over seas oil barons to keep us supplied with crude for the mean time.

Things we can look for in a completely democratic run house and office.

Huge tax increases to try and balance the budget.

More money going to the oil barons with not real push to increase production and reduce costs.

Yours and my tax money being spent on feeding and housing illegal imigrants or allowing them to stay in our country for free.

And with BO you can expect to see his true family heritage come out and si muslim buddies take up perm residence here in our country.

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago:
The ruling had nothing to do with Chicago and "a few other cities". :roll:

Not directly, but it set a legal precedent, it opened the door...

Gun rights advocates maintain that handguns are used far more often to protect against crimes than they are used to commit them. To them, the Supreme Court ruling came as a victory, and emboldened gun rights groups to file legal challenges to similar bans in other jurisdictions, including San Francisco and Chicago.

Originally Posted by RebelDarlin:

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago:
The ruling had nothing to do with Chicago and "a few other cities". :roll:

Not directly, but it set a legal precedent, it opened the door...

I doubt that will go very far, as DC has the special distinction of not being in the jurisdiction of any state, whereas every other city in America is.

Rat said:

Originally Posted by :
The problem I see is the difference in types of gun control we share or I share with others.

I feel there is plenty of gun control right now other then the background checks could be harsher.

That and stop the illegal sale of firearms without background checks.

Each and every buyer should have to go through a background check that goes through the buyers complete history including any phycological checks.

I also feel that no one should beable to come across our boarder with any firearm of any sort without it going through our FBI first.

We already have laws against fully automatic firearms and that is completely fine with me. You can own them in certain states but there is alot of red tape you have to deal with to own them legally.

But to ban certain firearms all together because they may be considered assult weapons is ludicris (sp). Also banning clips that hold more then 5 or 10 cartridges is ludicris also.

It would be like banning polished aluminum on a truck because it might blind someone or fully banning straight pipes because some pin head insists on using the jakes while rolling through town with them.

When used responsibly these things do not hurt anyone and why should I be limited to things when others are iresponsible.

Simply put, Guns do not kill people. People kill people. There are litterally millions of responsible firearms owners out there that are being punished due to a few thousand idiots.

With MINOR exceptions, you HAD me up to this point! Then, you posted CRAP! :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by :
The democrats want nothing more then to unarm the american citizen and tax us because their democratic run house has spent too much money.

The Democrats have NO desire to "disarm" law abiding American citizens! You think some of US don't own firearms?? :roll: Tax you? Democratic run "house?" What are you smoking? The House was controlled by the GOP from sometime during the Clinton administration until 2006! Yeah, the Dems have/had a reputation of "tax and spend," but I'm pretty sure Dubya has blown that argument out of the water for all eternity! :lol: Can you do the math? ONE Trillion dollars defecit at the end of Bush Sr's "reign." Balanced budget after Clinton WITH the help, or no help, of a GOP controlled House! NINE trillion dollars deficit after 8 years of Dubya!! NINE TRILLION DOLLARS.... mostly owed to CHINA! :roll:

Originally Posted by :
Don't go blaming Bush for this either because to be honest his hands are basically tied when it comes to most anything because he can't do anything with out the house saying so. If the house wants him to do something then he had better do it one way or another.

:lol: :lol: You ARE joking, right? Until 2006, Dubya had what was universally accepted as a "rubber stamp" Congress! "Better do it?" Bush has vetoed nearly every bill out of Congress SINCE 2006.... (no NEED to while they were in his pocket!) Only recently, have a FEW bills been overidden in Congress (AFTER he vetoed them) and, I hate to admit it, but with the lowest rating in history, he STILL has more clout as a "lame duck" president than any I can remember in history! :roll:

I'm REALLY sorry to have to say this, RAT..... but, you just qualified yourself as the typical Conservative Zombie, who parrots whatever Karl Rove tells you to say.... or of the "simple mind" that repeats whatever Bill O'Reilly is saying this week in his "talking points" without even stopping to THINK if it makes any sense! :roll:

Originally Posted by :
Like our little war. Had he been able to go over and get r done then it would be over and done by now. But no the house says this and that or this will happen and look at what we have now.

He wanted to spend a little money to get r done rather then a ton of money to just drag our feet. Well we ended up dragging our feet and spent a ton of money because the house would not allow the initial moneys to be spent.

NOW you're on CRACK!! :lol: Bush LIED his way into all the money he needed or wanted from Congress before illegally invading Iraq! He went against the advice of many Generals, and went with a "shock and awe" and a low impact force "because they will welcome us as liberators" battle plan! As "Commander in Chief" (though a "shirker" of his Guard duties,) the failures of our "mission" (that he had the audacity to claim was "accomplished" long before we even really got INTO a war,) fall SQUARELY on HIS shoulders! Had the great Democratic President Roosevelt been so INCOMPETENT.... we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now! :roll:

Originally Posted by :
We need to start using our own oil and the Dems say no. No drilling. Use our money to develop electric cars and trucks instead. In the mean time we will keep sending money to the over seas oil barons to keep us supplied with crude for the mean time.

I cannot, and WILL not argue that the Dems have stood in the way of drilling for oil in America! But, they are not alone in their culpability. As long as oil was cheap to import, the big oil companies (with subsidies from the GOP) felt no need to build new refineries or update their facilities! This is a massive fiasco, and their is PLENTY of blame to go around! I, for one, will not play politics with this one! I just want it fixed! I WILL, however, point out ONE thing that many seem to miss. Bush has a very "cordial" relationship with the House of Saud (Saudi Arabia for some of you) and as such has "negotiated" many large contracts to sell them the finest fleet of combat aircraft in the Mideast. Why? Perhaps, to "have our back" should the chit ever REALLY hit the fan, but mostly.... so that our Military Industrial Complex can continue to keep THEIR jobs, when all others around them are shipped overseas! In return, and as a "necessity" of sorts, he has allowed the Saudis to make MORE than enough money off of their oil to PAY for these military goods! And WE are paying for it all at the pump! :roll:

Originally Posted by :
Things we can look for in a completely democratic run house and office.

Huge tax increases to try and balance the budget.

That IS what it takes! Only the Dems have the B@LLS to do it!
More money going to the oil barons with no real push to increase production and reduce costs.

I believe this IS what the GOP has been doing for 8 years now!

Originally Posted by :
Yours and my tax money being spent on feeding and housing illegal imigrants or allowing them to stay in our country for free.

You DO realize that BOTH such "amnesty" policies have been under GOP administrations, right? No.... I don't think you DO! :roll:

The only thing more frustrating than arguing with a "conservative" is arguing with one who can't even keep his "talking points" straight as they've been "issued" to him! :lol: :roll:

Originally Posted by :
And with BO you can expect to see his true family heritage come out and si (???) muslim buddies take up perm residence here in our country.

This is just so blatantly racist and totally IGNORANT as to be beneath me to even RESPOND to! Fold up your "pointed white hat and robe" and put them away before you trip over your own ignorance and fall into your own CRAP! :lol: :lol:

"THIS" is exactly why it is so hard for a Liberal or a Democrat to even TALK to a Conservative! FIRST, we have to sober them up, THEN we have to educate/deprogram them, and when all is said and done, we STILL have to deal with their PREJUDICES! :roll:

All further comments are being reserved at this time! It would just be TOO easy.... and I'm trying to lose weight! :lol:

The only one smoking crach around here is the ones thinking the a demcrat run office would be a good thing.

But then the truth has been told over 100 fold on the real things in the back of BOs mind. And strickter gun control policies are just one of them, but then this would make it safer for his muslim friends to come and move in.

I see no need to do background checks and register our guns. It will do little to prevent criminals from getting guns. It is simply a way for politicians to make some feel more secure. We got along in this country for several centuries without either. We have gotten to the point in this country when we want 100% security. That will NEVER happen. There is no such think as a 100% risk free existence. Crime hasn't gone down since the government started registering guns and doing background checks. Granted, they have nabbed a few criminals with the background checks, but they probably would have gotten them at some point, anyway. There is NO amount of government regulations which will give us complete security. The best security we have is our freedom. We should be free to arm ourselves or not. Based upon recent events I think we have more to fear from our government than we do from criminals. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the criminals from the government. :? We should not be answering to the government. The government should be answering to us.

Well, I have no problem with background checks or having to register my firearms if need be.

Most of the time only the people that are denied for some reason ir other are the ones that hate background checks.


The background checks also make it harder for illegals to walk into a gun shop and purchase a firearm over the counter. This is a good thing. Make them have to work harder to get what they want off the street.


It used to be that if you had cash or a good checkbook that you could walk into any gun shop and buy what ever was behind the counter but this is not any more.

How wants some nut case to beable to walk in to Joe Bobs Gun shop on Main street USA and just plunk down money for a new Glock so he can go shoot up the nearest school yard? Not me.

I am an avid firearm holder and outdoors person and I have no problems with the regulations as they are. I just don't see any more need for further regulating of firearms. We just need to stricktly enforce the ones we have already.

Registering guns has not resulted in less crime. We started registering guns about 30 years or so ago. We have more crime today than then. Growing up I don't recall EVER hearing about people going on a college or school campus and killing people. Registering or restricting access to law abiding citizens to own guns hasn't reduced crime, nor will it. The problem is a general moral decline in this country, not that we have too many guns or need more restrictive laws. You cannot legislate morality.

I came across this today, and remember this from the early 90's.
Bears repeating... about the 2nd Amendment.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...675&pr=goog-sl

Originally Posted by Roadhog:
Bears repeating...

:lol:...shoot that. I meant bares. :AR15::badass:

Denny Crane on Gun Control :thumbsup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM0bn9Zgw-w

Originally Posted by Roadhog:
Denny Crane on Gun Control :thumbsup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM0bn9Zgw-w

:lol::lol::lol:

"Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns"--Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In

Friday, November 07, 2008

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4227

I saw your slamming.
You missed the bad advice...
:clap: