Here is an article on the semi-automatic gun law.

 

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=59

I just do not see assault rifles being a huge topic in the frame of the problems that we have in our country at this point. I prefer to think of the glass as "half full" instead of "half empty". I hope Obama becomes president but if he doesn't, I will rally around whoever is, to fix our nation.

Obama supports the DC ban on handguns. Which gun in which city will be next?

For those of you that think the banning of any firearm will stop crime PLEASE check this article.

Here is an article on the semi-automatic gun law.

 

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=59

Obama supports the DC ban on handguns. Which gun in which city will be next?

 

Have you been to D.C.? They don't need handguns there...:lol:

Have you been to D.C.? They don't need handguns there...:lol:

If I had plans to go to DC, I would plan on taking a handgun. When Obama goes to DC, you can bet that his entourage is armed with handguns. Why should the rest of us be denied the right to self-defense?

If I had plans to go to DC, I would plan on taking a handgun. When Obama goes to DC, you can bet that his entourage is armed with handguns. Why should the rest of us be denied the right to self-defense?

 

Because we are granted the access of highly trained police officers?

Because we are granted the access of highly trained police officers?

No, because all American citizens are created equal and should have equal constitutional rights.

 

If an army of armed men and women can be assigned to provide the politician class a safe environment in which to live and work in the District of Columbia, then it is not unreasonable to demand the preservation of our Second Amendment rights.

 

If Obama and Hillary, or any other politician are determined to deny the citizens of Washington, DC, their legal right to carry a gun, then I do not think that armed guards should be provided to them while working within the District of Columbia.

Or at the very least they could provide everyone in Washington with their own security detail. If everyone is indeed equal.

If I had plans to go to DC, I would plan on taking a handgun. When Obama goes to DC, you can bet that his entourage is armed with handguns. Why should the rest of us be denied the right to self-defense?

 

Unless you are going to a "sport" shooting event (and you must show proof) and carry your firearm in a locked case unloaded , with ammo in a seperate place as the firearm , you would be breaking the law. D.C. does not accept ANY concealed carry permit from any state. Also, along with their sidearms some of the Secret Service security details carry FULL AUTO "assualt pistols".

Unless you are going to a "sport" shooting event (and you must show proof) and carry your firearm in a locked case unloaded , with ammo in a seperate place as the firearm , you would be breaking the law. D.C. does not accept ANY concealed carry permit from any state. Also, along with their sidearms some of the Secret Service security details carry FULL AUTO "assualt pistols".

I have no plan to visit the District of Columbia during this lifetime. It is a cesspool where multi-level corruption is accepted as a fact of life, crime is rampant, and criminals are armed to the teeth. Apparently, word of handgun bans travels very slowly among the criminal element.

I have no plan to visit the District of Columbia during this lifetime. It is a cesspool where multi-level corruption is accepted as a fact of life, crime is rampant, and criminals are armed to the teeth. Apparently, word of handgun bans travels very slowly among the criminal element.

 

I didn't have a problem in DC last year with the family at all. That includes late night walks from the mall up 7 blocks through Chinatown to the hotel. BTW, I wasn't armed either.

I didn't have a problem in DC last year with the family at all. That includes late night walks from the mall up 7 blocks through Chinatown to the hotel. BTW, I wasn't armed either.

I am glad to here that your family outing went well. However, that does not change the fact that year in and year out, Washington, DC ranks as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States and some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation have not resolved the crime problem.

No, because all American citizens are created equal and should have equal constitutional rights.

 

If an army of armed men and women can be assigned to provide the politician class a safe environment in which to live and work in the District of Columbia, then it is not unreasonable to demand the preservation of our Second Amendment rights.

 

If Obama and Hillary, or any other politician are determined to deny the citizens of Washington, DC, their legal right to carry a gun, then I do not think that armed guards should be provided to them while working within the District of Columbia.

 

We're arguing about Washington D.C...I couldn't care less about Washington D.C. Banning all guns IS NOT going to happen in the entire United States. There are way too many avid hunters and sportsmen who would simply reject the ban, and they can't arrest that many people :lol:.

We're arguing about Washington D.C...I couldn't care less about Washington D.C. Banning all guns IS NOT going to happen in the entire United States. There are way too many avid hunters and sportsmen who would simply reject the ban, and they can't arrest that many people :lol:.

Does the act of a local community depriving its citizens of their constitutional right to bear firearms not bother you at all? Would you also support a city in which you do not live banning the reception of certain TV shows because of their political content or banning all political ads within their city limits?

 

Once a precedent is set to allow local jurisdictions to trump the Bill of Rights and to erode one constitutional right, none of our other constitutional rights are safe. I do not own a gun but I value all of my constitutional rights and I will not support a candidate who favors infringing upon any of them.

 

If liberals want to deprive American citizens of the right to bear arms, then they need to go through the amendment process and do so in a legal way.

Does the act of a local community depriving its citizens of their constitutional right to bear firearms not bother you at all? Would you also support a city in which you do not live banning the reception of certain TV shows because of their political content or banning all political ads within their city limits?

 

Once a precedent is set to allow local jurisdictions to trump the Bill of Rights and to erode one constitutional right, none of our other constitutional rights are safe. I do not own a gun but I value all of my constitutional rights and I will not support a candidate who favors infringing upon any of them.

 

If liberals want to deprive American citizens of the right to bear arms, then they need to go through the amendment process and do so in a legal way.

 

What about our constitutional right to due process, or unreasonable search and seizures? Weren't those affected with the USA PATRIOT Act?

 

I guess that is different since it was under Bush when it happened.