|
Post by whyohe on Feb 12, 2009 23:24:09 GMT -5
OK I'm going to open a can of worms. what do you feel about gun control? is some control good?
OK here is my take on it. i don't mind a back ground search. if it helps to try and make it harder for criminals to get guns I'm OK with it. i don't want some one with a violent history,schizophrenic criminal being able to walk in and buy a gun. if you are a law abiding citizen you should not fear a back ground check.
so how far do you think we should go? IMO if you commit a crime with a WEAPON OF ANY TYPE you loose your right to bear arms cause you have proven your self not able to use this right justly. you don't pull this right from law abiding citizens. criminals don't care about laws and will get weapons for their crimes weather gun or baseball bat.
punish those that break the laws, don't make laws that put criminals with the upper hand. i feel criminals have more rights than law abiding citizen. make the punishment stiffer for those that break them so it makes them think harder on "is it worth the risk?" i cant say it would work but I'm sure you have some good ideas out there!! lets hear it.
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Feb 13, 2009 0:05:29 GMT -5
The second amendment gives the general public the right to bear arms but does not mention the governments right to impose regulation on that right. I would wish that we could trust the government enough to pose reasonable regulation of the ownership and use of firearms with respect to the intent and spirit of the 2nd amendment's purpose. However, we have those in the legislative branch, not to mention other branches of government, who have no care whatsoever what our founding fathers intended. They only want control and they want it now.
Until about 10 years ago only felons were disallowed from gun possesion and ownership. Not just violent felons but all who had commited a felonious crime. About ten years ago Congress decided that restriction didn't go far enough and then passed legislation that would prohibit anyone who had commited a misdemeanor domestic assault to possess a firearm. On the surface that might sound rather reasonable but it includes those who were caught spanking their children and many have been convicted falsely on a "he said....she said" basis.
If I only trusted our government to have our best interest at heart then I wouldn't mind more regulation of firearms in attempt to keep us safe, but I fear that is only a smoke screen of their true intention which is CONTROL. Our founding fathers must have had a crystal ball in hand when they formed our constitution which makes every attempt to limit government control and intervention.
I really don't mind a little more regulation of firearms. What I mind is that the federal government will be doing it without regard to our fundamental rights. I think Ted Nugent described it as "FEDZILLA"
Doug
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 13, 2009 10:17:46 GMT -5
Well, this seems to be the most cool headed, reasonable discussion of gun control that I've heard in a long time. Gun control to the extent whyohe is talking, seems like a reasonable balance. It just seems lately that the bills are coming more fast and furious than ever, and they are trying to take away the right to bear arms in indirect ways. In my opinion, the whole gun control issue has always been cloudied by the statement in the second amendment pertaining to "in order to maintain a militia" (something like that). What about for regular individuals? What was the intent of the forefathers? And, have times changed since then? A militia being one person seems ridiculous to me. I would say to those who would take away all guns, that when the government can guarantee a homicide rate that is negligible, I could consider giving up my handguns, maybe. But longguns are a different story. I believe, like Charlton Heston said in an interview, that we are a nation of many different cultures and ethnic groups, and so there is a lot of friction, and crime, and so you have to be able to protect yourself. After 911, the Federal Government seemed to take so much more power, and gun control has gone right along with it. I can see that when the people are afraid, that they might be persuaded to give up alot of their rights. I've wandered around here with alot of ideas, but I again think that the first post showed a balance that I agree with. doug, I do know of one individual who lost his right to be around any guns of any sort, after threatening violence to his ex-girlfriend and breaking in, and at first it was kind of a shock that he couldn't go hunting anymore, but after thinking about it, and that his answer to his personal problems always seemed to be violence, I think the authorities did the right thing. Pete
|
|
|
Post by whyohe on Feb 13, 2009 11:05:21 GMT -5
petev, that is what i intend this discussion to be,is cool headed and reasonable.
doug i agree that the government takes it too far. spanking your childen? now this is where grey areas come into play. there is a differance between spanking and beating. where is the line drawn? what is the determination for this line? we have alot of well balanced members here that can make such a determination. but how do you put that into a law? these are the things that make gun control hard IMO. the little details that are abused and wrongly used.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 13, 2009 11:35:26 GMT -5
Elected Officials are expected to promote ideas and create laws. If they have no good ideas they promote bad ones. If we can convince them that it is a good idea to leave our constitutional rights unaltered they will do that. But we need to plant in their minds something that we do want and need. Normally after a campaign battle to get elected they arrive for duty with an empty head. We must somehow fill that void.
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Feb 13, 2009 13:01:20 GMT -5
In my opinion, the whole gun control issue has always been cloudied by the statement in the second amendment pertaining to "in order to maintain a militia" (something like that). What about for regular individuals? What was the intent of the forefathers? And, have times changed since then? A militia being one person seems ridiculous to me. Remember that our country was founded in self defense or to put it another way......in a violent effort to achieve liberty and independence. Many of the militia's that were formed in that day were only armed individuals who banded together for a common cause. They were not all that organized but they were armed and they were valiant in their opposition to oppression. The framework of the Constitution reflects an awareness of the government's ability to oppress the people. Individuals were guaranteed the right to be able to defend themselves. Maybe times have changed alot and maybe they haven't. An amendment to the Consitution is a law that should be taken very seriously and if any admendment becomes outdated then it should be deleted or changed in accordance with the law but not by those who just want to read into the script whatever is prompted by their own agenda. What we are experiencing here recently is no attempt to delete or amend the 2nd amendment in accordance with law but to make other laws that fly in the face of the amendment. This is dangerous policy IMO. doug, I do know of one individual who lost his right to be around any guns of any sort, after threatening violence to his ex-girlfriend and breaking in, and at first it was kind of a shock that he couldn't go hunting anymore, but after thinking about it, and that his answer to his personal problems always seemed to be violence, I think the authorities did the right thing. Pete Based on your scenario it seems that the authorities did the appropriate thing but laws aren't made on a case by case basis. There are many non-violent felons who have committed drug possession crimes or gambling crimes or non-violent larceny or embezzlement crimes. Despite the fact that they have no violent record whatsoever they are denied the right to bear arms for the rest of their lives no matter their age at the time of conviction. For years we have accepted and the NRA has accepted that ALL felons be denied the right to firearms. Today the law of firearm prohibition extends not also to all violent misdemeaners but only to domestic violent misdemeanors. In other words you can get into a fist fight in a bar, go to jail, and still possibly keep your right to bear arms but you sure better find a non physical way to correct your teenage kids at home because most of them are aware of the power that they possess if you ever grab them by the arm. Thus the goverment carves out a little greater percentage of the people to control. I am not attempting to step on toes but only to express my feelings in regard to the governments ability to control the population regardless of laws in tact to protect them. Maybe I should just go watch American Idol instead of focusing on this stuff. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 13, 2009 15:42:32 GMT -5
REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, LIBERALS AND CONSERSATIVES... Gun control advocates and those who believes that the citizen should have the right to bear arms without Government interference with ownership or the ammunition. The facts are clear: A large group, maybe the majority wants the guns taken away. Another large group are indifferent to the issue. Finally there are those of us who definitely want the rights to remain as is and don't want it changed. At the present time in some places laws have changed that right to have certain firearms banned or have required citizens to register what they have. Those are the facts as I see them and I think the restrictions will continue unless it is stopped by those of us who are determined to keep our firearms for hunting and defensive purposes. It is useless to argue the issue and debate what and who got us here and what is happening. I would like to know what I, as a person, can do that is helpful to stopping this slide away from what I believe in. What can you and I do that is constructive and effective? I see posted some good stuff but little or nothing that will stop what is happening. The vote doesn't seem to be the route to take because, for example, I don't vote in Illinois, Deleware or anywhere except Arkansas. It appears to me that State laws are laying the groundwork for disaster. Is this something that we cannnot prevent while remaining law abiding citizens? Or is there a measure that we can defeat this trend. If our defense is the NRA then I fear we are living in a glass house. Anyone have any answers that will actually work? When a bill is written it is pretty much out of our hands to defeat it. Petitions can be submitted but are there any instances where they have changed a representives mind? Your petition weighs little compared to the money the lobbist greases palms with. Sound off with good steps we can take to stem the tide against us. Some cities have created laws making owning pitols illegal. Is it legal for a city or a state to enact a law which confilcts with Federal laws? Is not the consistitution a Federal law and why is the Feds not striking down the conflicting laws. If some city in Illinois creates a law that conflicts with the state law then the state should declare it uninforcable and stop sending that city funds until the law is struck from the books. Or am I just full of misinformation? Finally, is it not the Presidental oath to defend the constitution and would it not be failure to perform a sworn duty to fail to do so? If all this is just BS and office holder can decide for themselves what is legal then we have already lost. Sorry for ranting but I am concerned....What can I do? What can you do? What can we do together that will preserve our rights. Ozark
|
|
|
Post by whyohe on Feb 13, 2009 16:07:20 GMT -5
ozark mabe the problem is that we just tell our reps not to vote for these HB. may be we need to be more specific on what we want, why we want it, and why it is fair.
i know we need to put a stop to thing but we need to be unified as to what is needed. i just want to know what people think is fair. balance is such a hard thing to acheive.
|
|
|
Post by minst7877 on Feb 13, 2009 17:20:18 GMT -5
Gun Control = Hitting what you aim at with what ever you want to use.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 13, 2009 18:00:21 GMT -5
Then missing is nothing other than guns out of control.
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Feb 13, 2009 19:46:12 GMT -5
The only kind of gun control that is reasonable is a firm grip and a steady aim.
The advocates of gun control try to make it sound like it is "crime control". Unfortunately all the gun control laws aim only the law-abiding citizen, not the criminal. It is already illegal for convicted criminals to possess firearms. It is illegal to use firearms in the commission of a crime. If criminals are going to ignore those restrictions they are sure to ignore any others as well.
When they get ready to practice their craft, criminals fear armed homeowners far more than they fear the police. When people are denied the right to own guns the crime rates go up. Waaay up!! That has been shown repeatedly.
There is no need or excuse for new gun control laws.
|
|
|
Post by missedagain on Feb 13, 2009 19:49:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Feb 13, 2009 20:17:18 GMT -5
OK, so here is my take on Gun Control........There are too many variations in the law from state to state. Example: I am from NJ. One of the most restrictive states in regard to gun control. I am also retired police from that state so I am in the know. I now live in NC where it is totally different. In NJ you need a FIREARMS ID card. Prints, back round check, NCIC check, mental health check ....the whole nine yards. This entitles you to buy a long gun/shot gun. When you go to the dealer to buy, you present your card (even before they let you handle the gun) and fill out a big sheet of info. They then call a number and run an NCIC check on you to make sure you have not committed a crime since you got your ID card. Now the gun is registered to you, the state, the FBI and who knows who all else. To buy a handgun, you must go thru the whole magilla as above and after maybe a few months you get your permit (you can apply for more than one, but don't push your luck). It comes in quadruple form. When you make the purchase, You get to keep one copy, the dealer keeps a copy, the state gets a copy and one is sent back to the issuing agency (your local PD). Oh, yeah, the ID is necessary if you are traveling to and from a range and have weapons in your vehicle. So now, in NC, if I want to buy a rifle or shotgun, I just go the store and buy it. Go to a flea market and buy any long guns that are laying on some guys pickup tailgate. No paperwork, Nada, zip, zilch period. ??. If I want to buy a handgun, I go to the sheriff's office and apply for a few permits, some minor paperwork and prints and in a week or so, I got my permit(s). OR, just get my permit to carry. A clean record and a $75 course and I'm all set. Now, all I have to do to buy a handgun, is present it at the dealer where I am buying the gun, he fills out a form and I am on my way! Never mind I just just let out on bond for shooting my ex girlfriend or robbing a bank or other heinous crime. I got me a new S&W .44 mag.!!! I think NJ is a little overly restrictive but NC is too liberal. You could easily have said permits and have committed a crime, were apprehended and released on bail and still be able to buy a gun. Its the NCIC check at the time of purchase that would pick up on that offense in NJ, but not in NC. I think there should be something similar to the CDL that commercial vehicle operators have to get. ONE license with the same rules in the USA. Used to be truck drivers would get a D/L in AR, LA and a few other states. When stopped for a violation, they would just hand the officer a license other than his home state since many of those states did not have reciprocity and therefore he would not get points on his home state license which would affect his insurance. Now, commercial vehicle operators only can get one CDL, period. Makes it easy to drive to another state and buy a gun with no paperwork! Richard
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 13, 2009 20:52:15 GMT -5
Good post Richard. Earlier I tried say that no City, State or Common Wealth should be permitted to create a law that was contradictory to the Federal Law or constitution. I personally feel that the constitution and Federal Law should be an overriding factor in all courts of our country. If Humptulip Arkansas created an ordnance prohibiting driving an automobile on its street or the highway during the hours of darkness, I would think that this Ordnance would be declared null and void in any court of our land. It should IMO be the same with firearms. IMO no city or State has a right to deny law abiding citizens of firearm ownership simply because the Constitution (The Highest US Law) clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. I blame the Courts for not rendering a Just and fair ruling at all levels. I will hush because my blood pressure is raising. But Ozark does pledge my honor, my possessions and my life to the defense of this right. As I said in another post and was told basically that I was full of it, "When they take my guns you will read about it. I would probable hand over those not hidden and use those that are before the so called authorities left my driveway. I will be 81 next month so a life sentence would be a short time to spend for standing up and being counted. I don't rely on the NRA but I do know where ME stands. Ozark
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 14, 2009 0:10:09 GMT -5
I believe the way it works is that if someone is convicted of breaking a law that he feels is unconstitutional, he can appeal it to a higher court, and they will decide whether or not to throw it out. That would also set a precedent for future cases. But, in reality not many people have the money, connections, or self-confidence to appeal a case to a Federal Court, and the Court has to agree to hear it. Anyway, like I said in my earlier post, the second amendment has ambiguity in it unfortunately. Because I wanted to understand the Bill of Rights better, I bought a book a few years back on the "Origins of the Bill of Rights" by Levy, to try to learn more about it. Some of the points are as follows: Quote: "The second amendment is the only provision of the Bill of Rights that has a preamble. The 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." Does the amendment vest a personal right to keep and bear arms? If it had no preamble it would undoubtably vest such a right. But the preamble is present, and it creates problems about the amendments meaning. " The chapter goes on and on, but it basically makes the point that the right to bear arms cannot be just for soldiers such as in a militia, because guaranteeing someone "the right to be a soldier doesn't make much sense". It says that the right is independent of the formation of a militia, because "Militias were only possible because people were armed and possessed the right to be armed. The right does not depend on whether militias exist." It goes on to say "Public regulation may specify the kinds of weapons that are lawful and conditions under which those weapons may be kept: but not regulation may subvert the right itself. Apparently, there was an English bill of rights that guaranteed the right to bear arms, and we continued that right in the Colonial time. Also, it was not considered feasable in the first century of our country to maintain a standing army, so it was considered the norm for the states to have militias, which required the citizens to be armed. My thoughts are again centered on the times we live in. It does not seem that many members of the forums are from cities. I was for many years. Now gangs are entering most of the big cities, and they are ruthless. I can attest to things they do that country people are shocked beyond belief when you mention it. Then there are illegals crossing the borders, and Mexican Mafia making raids into the U.S., and of course the possibility of terrorism. I guess I am just meaning to say that the right to bear arms is being threatened at a time when we are starting to need them the most in a century or more, for self-defense. Some states have adopted laws ensuring people the right to self-defense, which is also to say that in many areas defending yourself with force is technically a crime, I think. I wish the second amendment had been worded "to keep and bear arms for personal defense". Also, I think that technically the word "arms" can refer to guns, knives and whatever, since it is not specified. Well, I've rambled a long time, and I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 14, 2009 1:47:23 GMT -5
Petev, No need to apologize for exercising another right to speak freely. You brought up good points and things we need to seriously think about. Someone much smarter than I said: Let the people know the truth and the country is safe. Knowing that certain elements are bent on disarming citizens is a truth that we can be prepared to defend our position on. If it comes to making a choice to turn in your guns or refuse to do so each individual will have to choose to defend their interpertation of the rights or to forfiet it. I believe that if it comes to the authorities collecting all our firearms that task will be one that is costly in lives and dangerous for the country as a whole. You mention gangs which can become one serious problem. If our firearms are taken then we are left defenseless against criminal elements which will have them in some form. We have firearms now and I think we should insist on keeping them even if our Officials creates some foolish law prohibiting it. I predict that inforcing that law will require the military because I just don't think that the present field of Law enforcers will turn their backs on their family members and friends. I think many in the Military will choose to rebel before enforcing the law we all dread. Maybe that time will not come. Maybe those who want it are not serious enough to pay the cost of emplementation. Time will tell for those who live during the next fifty years. As sure as beans bloat this will cause a large and hostile division of our people.
|
|
|
Post by chickenhunter on Feb 14, 2009 3:54:40 GMT -5
I think anyone of any age foreign or domestic has the right to self defense with the use of deadly force anywhere in this country. That includes felons we deem safe to walk our streets. I think doing otherwise is treating the 2nd amendment as a privilege instead of a right. I am not willing to negotiate any of my rights. JMO. Simplisticly yours, Joe
|
|
|
Post by fowlplay on Feb 14, 2009 9:22:09 GMT -5
Standing back and shooting 1'' groups at 100 yards is GUN CONTROL.
Make tougher laws for the criminals not the law abiding citizens. I don't care if you rob a store with a empty gun. Kiss your but good bye because you are going to jail for the rest of your life. Strike one on a gun crime you should be out instead of being able to plea bargain. There are over 5000 gun laws in the books now and the only people it effects are the law abiding citizens. Steve
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 14, 2009 9:44:44 GMT -5
Make tougher laws for the criminals not the law abiding citizens. I don't care if you rob a store with a empty gun. Kiss your but good bye because you are going to jail for the rest of your life. Strike one on a gun crime you should be out instead of being able to plea bargain. Steve Yes, I think that just enforcing the laws that are on the books would solve a lot of the problems. One of the reasons I got a revolver was the lack of enforcement. I have had a couple of occasions to go to the police in the last ten years, and they just weren't interested. It disgusts me that to get action from the police, more often than not you have to know someone. So, I have the means to protect myself, and the pyschopaths or bullies probably will try to fish in easier waters! Here's a story: About 15 years ago, an individual broke into a local restaurant after it was closed. Well, the owner's family had moved in upstairs, while they were shopping for a house in town, as they had lived up on a mountain about 5 miles out of town. Well, John, the owner, heard a noise in the restaurant, from the kitchen. John also happens to be a total gun nut, and owns a couple of hundred firearms, many of which are military. So he cocked back the action on his .45 and let it go with a loud click. He was surprised the intruder didn't flee upon hearing it. Then he went from the kitchen to the dining room and there was a guy from a local bar going behind the bar in the restaurant. John pulled up on him. Well, it was Christmas time and the ladies had put a large amount of green decorations around the door. The intruder tried frantically to find the doorknob, but could not do so, and so was still 20 feet away from a guy with a loaded .45. So, he- the intruder, did the next best thing, and ran into the dining room, and took a flying leap through a closed window, thus making his escape. The police, of course followed up on it later and asked John about pulling a gun on someone, and John replied: "Who said anything about a gun?" He hasn't had any trouble since.
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Feb 14, 2009 10:03:52 GMT -5
OK, so here is my take on Gun . . . . . . . . . . . So now, in NC, if I want to buy a rifle or shotgun, I just go the store and buy it. Go to a flea market and buy any long guns that are laying on some guys pickup tailgate. No paperwork, Nada, zip, zilch period. ??. If I want to buy a handgun, I go to the sheriff's office and apply for a few permits, some minor paperwork and prints and in a week or so, I got my permit(s). OR, just get my permit to carry. A clean record and a $75 course and I'm all set. Now, all I have to do to buy a handgun, is present it at the dealer where I am buying the gun, he fills out a form and I am on my way! Never mind I just just let out on bond for shooting my ex girlfriend or robbing a bank or other heinous crime. I got me a new S&W .44 mag.!!! . . . . . . . . . Makes it easy to drive to another state and buy a gun with no paperwork! Richard Richard, I sincerely doubt your simplistic summation of the requirements in North Carolina. Federal law, not just states require licensed gun dealers to submit paperwork on all sales before selling firearms anywhere in the US. I have had to do that a number of times here in Arkansas. There most certainly is paperwork involved just as I had to fill out on customers years ago when I had a FFL. There is also a required call for a background check for licensed dealers. (There is some exceptions at gun shows.) There is also an extensive background check required for "right to carry" license here in Arkansas. If the police don't follow up on the instant checks then the fault lies there and will not be solved by additional restrictions on lawful citizens. Yep. You are right about buying a gun from a private individual. There is no requirement for private individuals to do the kind of paperwork that licensed dealers regularly do. But then again I will bet you there are a lot of guns sold from the trunks of cars back in NJ with no paperwork too. Last time I checked, the crime statistics indicated NJ was not the safest place in the nation to live regardless of their overly strict gun control regulations. Since their latest round of gun control laws, neither is Great Britain or Australia. The focus of "Gun Control" should be on "Crime Control", not on making life difficult for the citizens who are trying to obey the laws. Criminals are not going to go through those hoops to get a firearm. They are just going to their local "fence" to pick up the tools of their trade. No questions asked.
|
|
|
Post by fowlplay on Feb 14, 2009 10:50:33 GMT -5
Chuck you are 100% correct. The focus should be on "Crime Control."
Reverend Billy Graham was asked about guns and crime. His reply was you can take all the hand guns and load them with bullets. Then take them to Central Park and place them in a huge pile. You can walk by them everyday without a worry about being shot. People kill people not guns.
Guns are not the only way to kill people. If society are going to ban guns than they will have to ban golf clubs, knives, cars, planes, baseball bats, rope, etc.
America needs to deal with the crime problem and stop using guns as a scapegoat. (Not to be confused with Edge's goat) Steve
|
|
|
Post by missedagain on Feb 14, 2009 13:19:09 GMT -5
Better keep a close eye on the current executive and legeslative. There is an amendment to Brady in the the house now. They are trying to pushing through a 1000 page "stimulas package" that they have admitted to not having read through. ( I love the idea of them leaving blanks in where you can just go ahead and fill in -150 million-for your pork of choice.) Think your name is going in one of the blanks. (If you donated to someones election campain, maybe it is!) If they think they can push $850 Billion in pork by the American public in the middle of the night what chance does the 2nd amendment have?
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Feb 14, 2009 20:03:38 GMT -5
Chuck.........The most I can see when buying a long gun here in NC is to have a D/L. Believe me, I just purchased a new Kel-Tec .380 from a dealer and while I have a carry permit, he did NO Instant NCIC check! Even in NJ, if you have said "permit to purchase a hand gun", they do an instant check also. I can tell you this........You would not be caught dead at a flea market selling ANY gun. And does Jersey have crime? Does a bear make poop in the woods? But, from a law enforcement point, the guns used by criminals are either stolen or bought out of state. Everyone of my guns which I brought down to NC from NJ are registered to me. If I sell it to someone at a flea market and they use it in a crime and it is recovered? The buck stops at me when they do a trace on the gun. I sold one hand gun to a friend who has a carry permit. I took a copy of his permit and had him sign and date a short form I made up. Richard
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Feb 14, 2009 20:58:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 14, 2009 21:40:36 GMT -5
The following article was about the Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2008 where a Washington D.C. resident sued to be able to keep his handgun at his home. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91913260An excerpt from the article: "In a 5-4 vote Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. The court said gun ownership is an individual right, not connected with military service, and that it can be regulated in some ways." I haven't heard much about the further effects of this ruling since, but it would seem to supply a lot of ammo to gun owners given the rash of gun control bills being proposed in different states. Anybody heard anything more about it?
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Feb 14, 2009 22:00:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joe21a on Feb 15, 2009 11:09:08 GMT -5
I think Obama said some think along the line that the constitution does give the individual person rights but that he and the government has the right to curtail and regulate those individual rights
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Feb 15, 2009 12:23:05 GMT -5
I think Obama is reasonably intelligent. If that is true, he will not make gun registrations and stricter controls a priority. I think there is plenty for him to concentrate on that is considered part of his job and less of a problem than tampering with the rights of gun owners. I see no point in making gun owners angry at a time when the economy has many of them in a depressed state of mind.
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 15, 2009 17:11:33 GMT -5
The following is from the article I posted earlier: "Obama signaled his approval of the ruling in a statement Thursday:
[Obama said:]"Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country," he said, adding that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," but the decision reinforced that "if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Feb 15, 2009 17:24:26 GMT -5
The following is from the article I posted earlier: "Obama signaled his approval of the ruling in a statement Thursday: [Obama said:]"Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country," he said, adding that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," but the decision reinforced that "if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe." It would really help my peace of mind if I knew where he was coming from when he says that. Time will tell and I hope that Ozark is correct in his assessment.
|
|