No one is going to take away your guns, and after 40 years of control, they never tried (DEMS). This was another made up issue during Raygun's run for the WH. It precludes the Christian thing brought on by KKKarl Rove. This is a tactic of theirs that hey employ and then harp on for ever. Randis is correct, the cops want to control what types of weapons We The People possess. Remember the LA bank robbery shoot out? Ask those cops if they're ok with assault weapons being on the street, bet they'd say no. I own and love shooting my guns, doesn't mean I'm a bad guy. AND they were locked up, until the kids were moved out. Now the kids are in their 20's and 30's.

The RW will use this until they can't use it anymore. When that is, I have no idea.

if the Democratic Party would take an oath to adhere as closely as possible to the 2nd Amendment they (we) might never lose another election.
Anybody who has any sense of what the Dems and Reps are really about knows that the Reps are much more likely to go all police-state on your ass and there will go your guns AND your Constitution.

Thats what the Repubs did in New Orleans

I would advise the Dims to stear well clear of this issue. This is a bigger loser for them than abortion I think

Truly, I think the dems biggest failure is making people understand and ackowledge their position. My uncle, god bless his ignorant little self, made a statement a month or so ago about needing to go get a gun before the dems take over and make them illegal. This is a guy whose every interest lies with the dems, he is almost 50 and has never felt the need to own a gun before now but suddenly is in a panic about the dems winning in November and outlawing guns so he will get one???? Anyways, I think it really behooves the people who want to regulate gun ownship and use to clarify that they have no intention of outlawing guns because the NRA and the republicans keep saying that they are and they say it very loudly and very clearly. No decent citizen should mind having a waiting period, especially since they are usually quite short and a background check- you have to have one to get many a menial job so why not to carry a deadly weapon that any idiot can fire instantly and on accident?

Steve and CowboySteve--That's what I'm talking about, exactly. We have Bongwater here, and I just know they will go after who owns what when the shit hit's the fan. Fortunately for me, I am not a member of the NRA, which is where they will go first for people. If they take our guns we can't fight back. Here's my question, what exactly is the purpose of Bongwater? Really. This is serious shit, why do we have a company fighting our war?

For me, it comes down to this question. What is the definition of "Arms". A strict constructionist view would be that only those arms available to the framers in 1789 would be legal to own. The opposite end of the interpretation spectrum would posit that any weapon would be defined as arms and, therefore, legal to own and possess, including artillery, tanks, missles and WMDs. We have already accepted restrictions preventing most modern infantry weapons down to fully automatic weapons from public ownership. The semi-automatic versions of infantry weapons and large magazine handguns are the current scourge and what the police fear most. I would think that the way to solve the current imbroglio would be to accept a further prohibition of semi-automatic pistols and rifles. This would still leave bolt and lever-action rifles and Revolver handguns available for sport shooting and hunting and would remove the need for most police SWAT units. But the High Priests of the NRA will not accept it. So here's a suggestion. Since the NRA honchos want NO effective restrictions on gun dales or ownership, try and get them to admit they favor legalization of fully automatic weapons.

Ish-- I agree, but now, I think we need fully aoutomatic weapons until Bongwater is a thing of the past. Why would Prince get into a business that has no longevity? Unless he knows it is worth it to start a company of such sorts. Scary. It must have come about with guarantees.

Already legal. They are just expensive, and require one more hoop to jump through.

When I see things like this I just have to wonder, are guns a drug? and is this an addiction?

http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/

That and the racist implications of the second amendments ratification make me question it. I don't believe Canada even has a similar amendment, why must we?

I think the neo-con logic goes like this: "Let them buy up all the guns they want*. Our buddies will make $$$. When we're ready, we'll put a lockdown on ammunition, black powder and reloading supplies." Put a limit on civilian ammunition possession, (of course private security companies will have unlimited rations) and there you have it.





*BTW, you can own that gun, but since you're an American, and have nothing to hide, the ATF will be by to verify how many guns and how much ammo you do have. Just in case we need to know that info.

The real reason the NRA supports the Republican party is this: it pretends to represent gun owners, but IMHO it is a corporate lobby for gun manufacturers.

The evidence for this? There was a recent discussion over whether gun purchases should be able to sue gun manufacturers over their products. Guess who the NRA sided with? Gun manufacturers.

Like every other corporate lobby, then, it supports the Republican party, because like any other corporate lobby, it wants its industry to be unregulated.

If you look at the NRA this way, and the gun industry in this fashion, you will receive

This is precisely why they will supposedly fight for the 2nd amendment, all while cheerleading Bush's moves to stomp on the 4th and the 1st. They are not a lobby for the individual rights of gun owners, despite what many gun owners think.

The NRA has been defiant of any and all gun legislation and even flaunts their power by holding their convention is the very town that the kids from Columbine were killed. To their their slogan "Guns don't kill people" I say how come a lot of people have been shot by them and died?

Seeker--Right on, spot on. That is why I despise them with every fiber of my being. I only own a couple of guns, I don't need anymore, I don't crave them like some of my friends, I just like going out to my little range here and shooting the crap out of stuff to blow off steam, I don't need the NRA for anything.

Agreed. Except I don't get much time to take mine to the range much so I guess I just have them to practice cleaning once in a while for now. And if they do decide to ban semi-automatics I only lose one of the 3. But that wouldn't make much sense to me.

Does anybody know of a gun owners group that is not the NRA and has a more balanced agenda for gun ownership, or are they all tainted by apocalyptic militia wanna-bes?

Felixe--I don't know of a group, but there has to be one somewhere. As for me, I have a range on my back 40, so all I have to do is load up the tractor and go, I know, I'm lucky.

well put

And I'm jealous. I could go do some shooting behind our home, but the people in the apartment behind us would be very upset.

Yeah, that would be a bit disarming, hahaah, too bad you live so far away, we have a blast here, no pun intended...

American Hunters and Shooters Association
http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php

According to a 2003 Field & Stream National Hunting Survey, sportsmen overwhelmingly support reasonable gun safety proposals. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of hunters support proposals like background checks to purchase guns, keeping military style assault weapons off our streets and the elimination of cop killer bullets.

In recent years, extreme political positions purporting to support gun rights have jeopardized our sport and have hurt the image of responsible gun owners. Unless the sporting community can become unified behind an organization that fights for safe and responsible hunting and shooting practices and sensible gun ownership, future generations may be unable to participate in and enjoy the shooting sports.

Americans who love the outdoors and the shooting sports deserve an organization that represents their views, avoids angry political rhetoric and delivers well thought out, rational programs and policy proposals.

We believe sportsmen and sportswomen overwhelmingly agree that an organization that brings the right message to policy makers on such issues as the safe use of firearms, our environment and protecting and training our nation’s first responders is long overdue.

[snip]

BTW, the NRA views them as a "bogus" gun rights organization. "Bogus" because, of course, they are not opposed to all gun regulation, and don't take their knee-jerk absolutist positions.

Thank you for that bit of info. I am a gun owner and recently switched Independent-to-Dem voter, cautious about joining the NRA because of their perceived support for the Republican Party, which I abhor. While I would like to defend my right under the Constitution to own weapons of self-protection, I would never support any entity that would promote the rest of the Republican agenda. (The curious thing is that the Republicans have voted on more anti-gun legislation than the Dems seems to be conveniently overlooked. I guess people who have been trained on "believing" what they are told just line up to receive the lies and swallow them whole.)

To Randi: Please PLEASE, if you purchase a weapon... THIS IS IMPORTANT! I urge you to take a course on its use, the legalities of various situations and PRACTICE YOUR WEAPON. Take a concealed weapons course, even if you do not intend to carry it. The problem with people merely acquiring a weapon is that they are not familiar with it if confronted with a desperate situation. THAT is when you hear about criminals taking guns out of the hands of their victims and using it against them...when people don't know how their weapon works, how to release the safety, how to pull the slide or cock the hammer. You say you were always good at target practice. Do that. It's kind of a zen thing to focus on, aim and hit the bulls eye. It's good to know the limitations of range and the feel of the recoil so it doesn't come as a surprise. Heaven's forbid one would EVER have to use it against another human being, but there actually are crystal-meth crazies and desperate people (now that Bush has created more desperate people). Please take a gun safety course. There is a lot to be learned on when and how weapon use is legal. A concealed weapon license can also reduce a charge from a felony to a misdemeanor in certain situations if you have to use your weapon.

"Guns cause crime like flys cause garbage."

Seeker1--Cool, will check them out.

Sushi--Randi was in the Air Force, qualified as a Sharpshooter I believe and is well versed in the handling of weapons, so don't worry it's all good, but you're right on most people who just buy a gun and think oh, I load and pull the trigger, NOT!!!

this is sooo simple..no wonder the Supremes blew it....the 2nd Amendment says "the right of the PEOPLE...shall not be infringed
here's the simple part..."people" in the Constitution is us, the government, "the people".
when the Constitution delineates individual rights, it use the term person or persons.
so people have the right, for a militia...but persons do not, for personal reasons.

THIS IS THE ORG - Gun Owners of America
http://www.gunowners.org/ <- US Constitution Approved


The NRA is involved in psyop allowing the globalist to grab guns and whittle away at the 2nd Amendment. Once they have our guns, we lose.

YEAH? RANDI is a SharpShooter? WOW, Randi, you ARE really something else! Who'da thunk it? That's just sooo radical left... And nothing wrong with that!

Morgan-- Yep, she was voted most outstanding woman in the Air Force, too. She is a class act all the way, and a good shot. Isn't it funny how all the war loving RWers never served a fucking day in uniform, they love war, they just don't want to fight in one, and when one does they make him a hero, even though he sat out the war in a prison cell. Pussies!

How did you know that? SHE IS SO GREAT! (mostly) I would love to go out for drinks with her. She could drink me under the table and I could ask her somethings Ive been dying to ask her for years.

Morgan--Oh yeah she talked about it a couple of times, and yes she is awesome, the fact that she has her own lawlibrary proves how dedicated she is!!!

Back in the day, that "well regulated militia" was muzzle-loading, fer Christ's sake! And can anybody tell me how all those secret gun-owners will manage to find each other on that fateful day to actually form a well-ordered militia? Do they have some kind of "gun-dar" to recognize other "gun-heroes"?

So, what does the Constitution say about regulating ammunition? Guns don't kill people (usually), bullets do, however, so just clamp down (Constitutionally, of course) on ammo if you want to get a handle on "guns".

Steve-- great points. Militias were instituted for a resistance movement, so it does actually seem very relevant to today. The Nat'l Guard is set forth to protect us from a foriegn enemy, not domestic. So as long as we are allowed to own and possess guns, we are still adhering to the Constitution. Which is why I'm torn about assault weapons, because, who will they turn on us? How many people will just follow orders? Watch the Patriot, it is more relevant now than ever. So in that vein, we do need to have access to assault weapons, because we can't use muzzle loaders to fight m-16's.

What's the big deal about this ruling? We've always had the right to own guns. The court decided it was the citizens of Washington DC that could own guns. A person still must go through a background check and safety course (CA) before purchasing. We need Jonathan Turley to explain what exactly the 2nd is and what it means to us today.

The right is foaming at the mouth claiming another victory, but isn't it ironic they never mention the recent loss of the 4th amendment?

Again, correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you all will).