Some progress...

[Crackersneckian]

its in the feb. issue of playboy, mentioned in the 20Q with some actor.

is it true? i really have no idea, is it as credible as a pro-nra website? probably

i have no problems with gun ownership or people having guns, as long as its done legally.

I agree, it does need to be done legally. As to whether playboy is more credible, well I won't get into that but look at whom they were interviewing? Well, we'll agree to disagree, OK. The NRA does try to stand for citizens rights on owning a gun and they try to help each person learn how to handle the gun safely and correctly so that no one will be harmed in any way. Its good for some people because they may not have anyone to guide and teach them about guns and how to be safe when firing a weapon. What it all comes down to it we all need to take it upon ourselves to teach and guide people about firearms and hope they are listening , this may prevent some type of unneeded accident. It takes a responsible citizen to own a firearm and there are responsibilities involved with it, but it should be worth it, for that right is given to us by our founding fathers through the 2nd Amendment. And by the way I wish President Obama all the luck and hope he can fix some of this messed up country. He has got his hands full and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

[CoeburnCane]

And by the way I wish President Obama all the luck and hope he can fix some of this messed up country. He has got his hands full and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

Good on you for saying that. I wish more right-leaning people would step up and say this & practice it, instead of trying to pick apart every little thing that Obama may/may not be doing only a month & a half into being POTUS.

It'd save everybody a lot more spikes in blood pressure and heartache if that were the case.

As for the gun issue--the moment people in this country need to start worrying about guns being 100% banned across the board is when the Supreme Court starts hearing cases to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Until then, the laws that are pa$$ed are simply legislation setting limits on that core 2nd Amendment right--just like there are laws that the FCC enforces regarding the 1st Amendment. Do we truly have 100% "freedom of speech", as is the core 1st Amendment right? No, we don't. There are certain things we can't say on TV or broadcast on radio airwaves. By the same token--these laws tell us that there are certain guns that are too dangerous to be in the hands of American citizens, and legislation limits the ability to obtain those weapons. I know dirty words and dangerous guns are different things--but it's the same exact premise & logic structure.

Seems to me a conundrum for a lot of the right--the logic that they use to make legislation to prevent cuss words and keep other "morally objectionable" things off the airwaves is the same logic that is also used to create legislation limit what kinds of dangerous guns they can own. I know a lot of people that own guns, and they don't like to censor themselves in most anything they say--isn't it funny that they're more outraged about losing their guns than their ability to say anything they want? Guess some people favor the freedom of the bullet over the freedom of the thought. Interesting stuff.

[Counts]

Good on you for saying that. I wish more right-leaning people would step up and say this & practice it, instead of trying to pick apart every little thing that Obama may/may not be doing only a month & a half into being POTUS.

It'd save everybody a lot more spikes in blood pressure and heartache if that were the case.

As for the gun issue--the moment people in this country need to start worrying about guns being 100% banned across the board is when the Supreme Court starts hearing cases to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Until then, the laws that are pa$$ed are simply legislation setting limits on that core 2nd Amendment right--just like there are laws that the FCC enforces regarding the 1st Amendment. Do we truly have 100% "freedom of speech", as is the core 1st Amendment right? No, we don't. There are certain things we can't say on TV or broadcast on radio airwaves. By the same token--these laws tell us that there are certain guns that are too dangerous to be in the hands of American citizens, and legislation limits the ability to obtain those weapons. I know dirty words and dangerous guns are different things--but it's the same exact premise & logic structure.

Seems to me a conundrum for a lot of the right--the logic that they use to make legislation to prevent cuss words and keep other "morally objectionable" things off the airwaves is the same logic that is also used to create legislation limit what kinds of dangerous guns they can own. I know a lot of people that own guns, and they don't like to censor themselves in most anything they say--isn't it funny that they're more outraged about losing their guns than their ability to say anything they want? Guess some people favor the freedom of the bullet over the freedom of the thought. Interesting stuff.

If you wait till the SC starts hearing the cases before you start worrying then you are SOL.

I have been a middle of the road person my whole life but I am very much ANTI erosion of rights and I don't think you can make the argument that BOTH sides will clamp off any of our freedoms that will suit them at that paticular time and it sucks that neather side is outraged by these things till the other party in in power

[sup-rbeast]

Your rights were eroded more in the last 8 years than at any other time since desegregation. And unless you are black you have to go back further than that to find a time when Americans were stripped of more rights than they were under W. 8 more years of a policy like that and we'll actually need a$$ault rifles...





(can't believe you can't even write ***ault...lol)

[Counts]

Your rights were eroded more in the last 8 years than at any other time since desegregation. And unless you are black you have to go back further than that to find a time when Americans were stripped of more rights than they were under W. 8 more years of a policy like that and we'll actually need a$$ault rifles...





(can't believe you can't even write ***ault...lol)

It depends on what is defined as an ***ault rifle (Some law maker may deside that a scope on your gun makes it an ***ault rifle or any rifle larger than 22 calaber)


Like I said BOTH sides have and will continue to take away our rights and just becouse one side does something you may not agree with does not give the other side the right to up the stakes when they get into power (sigh......but that seems to be the way it goes )

[sup-rbeast]

An a$$ault rifle is an M-16, AK-47, SKS, M-14, SG-550/551...etc They are designed for combat (hence the name "a$$ault rifle") and the manner of fire can be selected. And IMO, there is not a need for them outside of war...sure, you can hunt with them, but you can hunt with a conventional rifle as well. Here's my take on it....we have 1st amendment rights but we cant run naked down the street, even if it is our way of expressing ourselves. That is a limitation on that right. We are allowed to bear arms...but that doesn't necessarily mean we have a right to own a$$ault rifles...that is a limitation on that right. With folks so willing to give up their privacy to Bush, I don't see why they are the first to whine when someone mentions banning a$$ault rifles. BTW the US a$$ault weapons ban that was in place from 94-04 defined an a$$ault rifle as: a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to use a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following features:
1-obvious pistol grip, 2-folding or telescoping stock, 3-grenade launcher, 4-barrel shroud, 5-flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accept one, or 6- a bayonet mount. And really, why shouldn't that be banned?

[Counts]

1-obvious pistol grip, 2-folding or telescoping stock, 3-grenade launcher, 4-barrel shroud, 5-flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accept one, or 6- a bayonet mount. And really, why shouldn't that be banned?

Becouse it is the 1st step after this you have to think the next step is to make it more and more restrictive.........

Honistly nothing in the bill will affect me directly but neather did the wireless wiretaps from the last adminastration. IMHO both can have a good argument made for them but both are equaly as wrong

In the mean time the (R)s who did not mind the wire taps will bitch and moan about this while the (D)s who were on the other end of this not so long ago are NOW doing exactly the things that got the (R)s in trouble.........


Neather side is right and we as a country will continue to lose our rights so long as the 2 sides keep tring to 1-up the other it is a bit sad

[R13]

I get what you're saying Counts, but Obama will be implementing the same ban of 94-04. The only changes I could see, would be newer a$sault weapons made in the past 5 years.

[sup-rbeast]

IMO, our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to suit the world they lived in..and the burdens they had to bear under England's rule. I do think they tried to write a far-sighted document that would endure the test of time...but at the same time I don't think they wanted to protect something in the Bill of Rights that was more harmful to the country than good.

[Counts]

I get what you're saying Counts, but Obama will be implementing the same ban of 94-04. The only changes I could see, would be newer a$sault weapons made in the past 5 years.

You are right The ban as is currenty stands is NOT a bad thing but I THINK it could get harry quick the 94 ban was never expanded on so there is reason to belive that this one will not exceed that scope eaither HOWEVER the Dems lost power in congress in 96 so it IS possable that they just had not had the opertunity to do so. That being said while I can not like the situation I don't think It in itself is the end of the world