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.

 

Here is what Obama thinks : With the U.S. Supreme Court about to hear the District of Columbia's challenge to the U.S. Court of Appeals decision striking down the city's ban on operable firearms in private homes as unconstitutional, Obama, the Harvard Law School graduate, opined unequivocally that D.C.'s ban was "constitutional." This is coming from a man who, as president, could appoint perhaps three or more members of the U.S. Supreme Court over the next several years.

He has secretly been involved in trying to change the gun laws and do away with "semi-auto" pistols for about ten years. He wants to divide and concour by hiding the changes under consumer safety projects. I have names, dates, and plans if interested.

Here is what Obama thinks : With the U.S. Supreme Court about to hear the District of Columbia's challenge to the U.S. Court of Appeals decision striking down the city's ban on operable firearms in private homes as unconstitutional, Obama, the Harvard Law School graduate, opined unequivocally that D.C.'s ban was "constitutional." This is coming from a man who, as president, could appoint perhaps three or more members of the U.S. Supreme Court over the next several years.

He has secretly been involved in trying to change the gun laws and do away with "semi-auto" pistols for about ten years. He wants to divide and concour by hiding the changes under consumer safety projects. I have names, dates, and plans if interested.

 

He can't just appoint whoever he wants to the Supreme Court, and you know that. Each person will have to be confirmed by the Senate, no?

 

Barack Obama would not get the support to ban all hand guns in the United States.

As far as some people posting on here that a common citizen has no NEED for certain types of weapons. Let's apply that to everything. Turn in your sportscars, a regular citizen does not NEED to go faster than posted speed limits. Same for certain types of motorcycles that can go 200 mph. Give them your 4 wheel drives also. A regular citizen has no NEED for one, you can get anywhere you NEED to go on paved roads. I could go on and on and apply this to more than just automobiles. Truth is people don't need lots of things that if they don't use correctly can result in death to innocent people. I own many guns, but I don't feel the urge to own a machine gun or other military type guns. But I know some people that do. Do they NEED them? No, but lots of people get a rush from firing these weapons, and they do it in a harmless fashion. I have no problem at all with someone owning any and all weapons they want, as long as they use them safely and keep they away from and educate their children about them.

He can't just appoint whoever he wants to the Supreme Court, and you know that. Each person will have to be confirmed by the Senate, no?

 

Barack Obama would not get the support to ban all hand guns in the United States.

 

If he gets by use what makes you think he can't get them by the Senate !

Ther person that refuses to visit the nation's capital is depriving him/herself of a major opportunity. There are so many amazing things to see and do in DC and the surrounding area; a single post on BGP wouldn't begin to scratch the surface.

 

It's been a long while since I went. Took my pregnant wife and my 10 year-old son. Got there at 3:00 PM on a Friday; I said to the family, "Let's hop on the subway and go to the Mall". My wife, being a very timid sort, balked. I assured her that all would be well; that this was the same transportation system used by legislators every day. Long story short, we went, stayed the weekend, had a lovely time. The look on my son's face when we got off the subway at the Mall was worth the 10-hour drive.

 

Does this mean that our nation's capital doesn't have major problems with crime? Absolutely not. Am I going to hide in a shell and not avail myself of the wonderful opportunities that a visit offers? Absolutely not.

So is it right to say that most people I have been reading today are against abortions because they are killing a living being but want to be able to have enough ammo to blow half the eastern seaboard off the map? Is that right?

 

I was wondering when someone was going to ask this question. What about the possibiliy that the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution by our forefathers to insure that the citizens of this nation would be able to defend themselves against a tyranical government? If that was the intention, almost any weapons ban should be unconstitutional. The truth is that our forefathers intended for our citizenry to remained armed for that reason. They were some what following the ideals of this guy named "John Locke.":rolleyes:

Ther person that refuses to visit the nation's capital is depriving him/herself of a major opportunity. There are so many amazing things to see and do in DC and the surrounding area; a single post on BGP wouldn't begin to scratch the surface.

 

It's been a long while since I went. Took my pregnant wife and my 10 year-old son. Got there at 3:00 PM on a Friday; I said to the family, "Let's hop on the subway and go to the Mall". My wife, being a very timid sort, balked. I assured her that all would be well; that this was the same transportation system used by legislators every day. Long story short, we went, stayed the weekend, had a lovely time. The look on my son's face when we got off the subway at the Mall was worth the 10-hour drive.

 

Does this mean that our nation's capital doesn't have major problems with crime? Absolutely not. Am I going to hide in a shell and not avail myself of the wonderful opportunities that a visit offers? Absolutely not.

 

 

:thumb::thumb:

As far as some people posting on here that a common citizen has no NEED for certain types of weapons. Let's apply that to everything. Turn in your sportscars, a regular citizen does not NEED to go faster than posted speed limits. Same for certain types of motorcycles that can go 200 mph. Give them your 4 wheel drives also. A regular citizen has no NEED for one, you can get anywhere you NEED to go on paved roads. I could go on and on and apply this to more than just automobiles. Truth is people don't need lots of things that if they don't use correctly can result in death to innocent people. I own many guns, but I don't feel the urge to own a machine gun or other military type guns. But I know some people that do. Do they NEED them? No, but lots of people get a rush from firing these weapons, and they do it in a harmless fashion. I have no problem at all with someone owning any and all weapons they want, as long as they use them safely and keep they away from and educate their children about them.

 

This is a terrible argument. People that are pro-gun want NO REGULATIONS.

 

fast cars are regulated - emissions, safety & it may go 200 but you have SPEED LIMITS.

 

motorcycles are regulated as well - license, speed limits, helmets

 

This is not about need or not needed it is about regulations!! People that are pro-gun want very limited regulations/rules. The problem is that EVERYTHING IS REGULATED (food, environment, speed limit, cars, building codes, fire codes, taxes, etc etc etc)

This is a terrible argument. People that are pro-gun want NO REGULATIONS.

 

fast cars are regulated - emissions, safety & it may go 200 but you have SPEED LIMITS.

 

motorcycles are regulated as well - license, speed limits, helmets

 

This is not about need or not needed it is about regulations!! People that are pro-gun want very limited regulations/rules. The problem is that EVERYTHING IS REGULATED (food, environment, speed limit, cars, building codes, fire codes, taxes, etc etc etc)

 

Refer to post 92.

Ther person that refuses to visit the nation's capital is depriving him/herself of a major opportunity. There are so many amazing things to see and do in DC and the surrounding area; a single post on BGP wouldn't begin to scratch the surface.

 

It's been a long while since I went. Took my pregnant wife and my 10 year-old son. Got there at 3:00 PM on a Friday; I said to the family, "Let's hop on the subway and go to the Mall". My wife, being a very timid sort, balked. I assured her that all would be well; that this was the same transportation system used by legislators every day. Long story short, we went, stayed the weekend, had a lovely time. The look on my son's face when we got off the subway at the Mall was worth the 10-hour drive.

 

Does this mean that our nation's capital doesn't have major problems with crime? Absolutely not. Am I going to hide in a shell and not avail myself of the wonderful opportunities that a visit offers? Absolutely not.

I agree. You have to make an effort to get back there. I went the first time when I was in the 5th grade and made my second visit in 02. I want to get back as the WWII memorial wasn't complete yet.

Hillary, who helped plot strategy for the million women march, along with a lady by the name of Peters, who is from Austraila was the one who got their guns takin away. She is head of the International Action Network On Small Arms(IANSA).She did it by passing laws first on licenseing and registration,so they would know who posessed them. They took" weapons of war" that included Ruger 10-22s, Browning sweet 16s, and Remington 760s, just a few examples."We have to license and register all handguns."Quote from Hillary!!

I was wondering when someone was going to ask this question. What about the possibiliy that the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution by our forefathers to insure that the citizens of this nation would be able to defend themselves against a tyranical government? If that was the intention, almost any weapons ban should be unconstitutional. The truth is that our forefathers intended for our citizenry to remained armed for that reason. They were some what following the ideals of this guy named "John Locke.":rolleyes:

 

I do not necessarily favor bans but I do support background checks, regulations, etc. These are the things that pro-gun people don't want. I just want to make sure we do what we can to keep guns in the hands of people that are responsible.

 

I do know "crazies" will still get guns. This is similar to the same argument with casino's. If we have casino's, more debt more bankruptcy more poverty. If there aren't regulations, then crime could go up. As will people go bankrupt even without casino's in KY. (I support casinos by the way)

I do not necessarily favor bans but I do support background checks, regulations, etc. These are the things that pro-gun people don't want. I just want to make sure we do what we can to keep guns in the hands of people that are responsible.

 

I do know "crazies" will still get guns. This is similar to the same argument with casino's. If we have casino's, more debt more bankruptcy more poverty. If there aren't regulations, then crime could go up. As will people go bankrupt even without casino's in KY. (I support casinos by the way)

 

I think that limitations on firearms should be as follows. No convicted criminals are allowed to own one, and every new gun purchase should be registered. This mass registration for already existing firearms will only occur for the already law-abiding citizens who will register their firearms. There are many limitations that are doing nothing but raising the price of purchase for law-abiding citizens. Background checks for criminal behavior occur immediately now by computer when you go to purchase a new firearm. That will not change.

I do not necessarily favor bans but I do support background checks, regulations, etc. These are the things that pro-gun people don't want. I just want to make sure we do what we can to keep guns in the hands of people that are responsible.

 

I do know "crazies" will still get guns. This is similar to the same argument with casino's. If we have casino's, more debt more bankruptcy more poverty. If there aren't regulations, then crime could go up. As will people go bankrupt even without casino's in KY. (I support casinos by the way)

 

I agree, we already have over 20,000 gun laws on the books.There is no problem with background checks. But they will go way over board if allowed.

I do not necessarily favor bans but I do support background checks, regulations, etc. These are the things that pro-gun people don't want. I just want to make sure we do what we can to keep guns in the hands of people that are responsible.

 

I do know "crazies" will still get guns. This is similar to the same argument with casino's. If we have casino's, more debt more bankruptcy more poverty. If there aren't regulations, then crime could go up. As will people go bankrupt even without casino's in KY. (I support casinos by the way)

 

 

I have no problem with background checks for handguns. Not terribly keen on the idea for a rifle, simply because a rifle is awfully unwieldy in a crime situation since crimes are often committed in close quarters. Not many robberies with an M1 Garand.

 

I am also all for Casinos too.