Political Punch

RG,

Will a change in gun laws be obeyed by criminals? Even if we assume criminals will obey gun laws, which they won't and don't, should we then also ban pools because people drown in them? Ban knives because people are stabbed with them? Ban alcohol because people drink & drive? Ban cars because people drive too fast and kill with them? When will people realize that it is not our freedoms that are the problem, it is bad people who are the problem.

Maybe the guns laws should change considering we have had several RECENT shootings at some of the well known colleges in our communities. Oh, no that would be too much to ask...like save our children from themselves. I guess not enough people got shot yet and that's why people think we don't need to change the gun laws. That is a very selfish way to look at this realistic picture of unfortunate shootings. I am a military veteran and I support change in gun laws to reduce the murders on campus we often see and hear able, but don't want to change anything. If you want a different result, you must do something different!

Change the guns laws stupid!

Obama for President.

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a Trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Abraham Lincoln, January 27, 1838

This was so true at one time, but no more. We have become a nation of excuses and alibis. I could care less who becomes our next President, it really makes no difference, and nothing will change. One candidate at last admits that he is bellicose, while the others claim not to be. They are liars!

The country I once loved and would die for is no more. God has turned his back on us and we will pay a terrible price.

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING or SPORTS! It is to prevent Tyrants from taking over the Nation from within. Obama will inable that, a vote for him just sends us one step closer to a revolution.

The proof is in the ...brief. See who really supports the 2nd Amm in who signed on with the Congress' amicus brief to the USSC re Heller.

All that needs to be said is this...."Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming your pencil for misspelled words!"
I live downstate Illinois and am constantly on the battle front as a staunch NRA member and believer in the Second Amendment. Illinois is closer to a socialist society through its handgun bans in Chicago, of all places. The current trend to ban any semi-automatic guns that are capable of holding 10 shells at ne time is ludicrous. Once we are infringed upon one of our rights the rest will come easy to dominate!
SINCERLY,
John

Gun Contorl is Naziism

As Mr. Sean Bradley point out "England, Austrailia, and other European nations have proven that guns bans only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding people. Criminals can still obtain and use handguns in crimes in England even though they have been banned " Yet again the Eurpoean Nations have forgotten what Gun Bans had lead to and that was the rais of Adolph Hitler. Gun Control was the reason why Hitler did his dirty deeds. Do you remember the holocost ? Do you know why millions of Jews where slaughter like animals ? Because of Gun Control. Hilter was the founding father of Gun Control and his 1935 speech proves it.

Hilter said in his own words "This year will go down in history for the first year that a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our Streets will be safer our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Hitler was not lying when he said that. You have the Clintons, Obama, Ted Kennday and the rest of the Liberal anti-gun Nazi Party.

Bottom line is if you support Gun Control then you are a Nazi Lover
There is no argument to this whats so every. Liberals are Nazi Lovers Period.

It would be nice to throw out both parties and try the 3rd & 4th ones for a change!

With "FAT TEDDY" pulling Obama's strings, you can bet the ranch that Osama Obama WILL sign every anti-gun measure that comes down the pike, IF he's elected President!

If you look at current gun laws today, we have over 15,000. How many criminals have actually been prevented from getting access to firearms? NONE! They don't get firearms legally. Hence the term, "criminal"! Why is it people like Chuck Schumer,Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the anti-firearms community think that banning firearms will prevent crime? England? Australia? Japan? They deny their citizens the right to have firearms. The have crime problems all over there country? Or even better yet, Right here in the U.S.! Case in point-Washington D.C.! You are not even allowed to own or possess a firearm. Look at their crime problem. Another case in point, "gunfree school zones"! What a joke? Where have the worst tragedies of shootings happened in our country? In schools! Because no one had a chance to defend themselves, many people lost their lives. But if you look at what happened in Colorado, a man with a firearm entered a church began to shoot people. Because one woman with here own PERSONAL FIREARM, she prevented the loss of many more innocent lives because SHE WAS ARMED! Guns are not the problem, criminals are! When a crime is committed, who get to spend time behind bars? the person? or the gun? I say this America, it should not take a slap in the face or a swift kick in the pants to tell you that it is time to wake up! criminals are the problem, not the honest citizen. To bring up another good point. Bill Clinton wrote in his personal auto-biography that if he had known that he was going to put so many friends in congress out of a job from passing the assault weapons ban, he would have never signed it into law!

The 1994 Clinton assult weapons ban only banned guns based on cosmetic appearance, not the fact that they were semi-automatic or not. Fully-automatic firearms have been regulated by the ATF since 1939. Is Mitt contradicting himself by saying he is opposed to new gun-control legislation? N0!! He said, he is opposed to a ban that included semi-automatic weapons.

I am opposed to any ban on firearms. England, Austrailia, and other European nations have proven that guns bans only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding people. Criminals can still obtain and use handguns in crimes in England even though they have been banned!!!!

Once and for all, the 2nd admendment is about self-defense of oneself and the country. It is not about hunting although that is a benefit to owning a gun. Some have said there is not left wing movement to take away guns, I suggest you look at Australia and England. In England, self-defense is illegal. Wake up America and see what they have in store for you with this new world order crap.

No matter who gets into office, it is time to start stockpiling weapons and ammunition. The country is going downhill fast. Criminals have more tights than do law abiding citizens, people will not take responsibility for themselves or their families. People that take an oath to defend the constitution of the United States do not take that oath seriously, they are just looking out for their own greedy personal intrests.

It is a proven fact gun laws do not work. We have about 15,000 on the books now in the country. All places that allow right to carry have the lowest incidence of violent crime. Should be 15 years for use of a gun used in crime commission, no parole, in the desert, in a pup tent, water, one meal a day. See ya. Gun free zones are no defense zones. Part of a perpetrator's planning process.

Come November, I'll stay home. I'm 64 years old. I can recall only once that I was able to vote for someone I truly trusted: Ronald Reagan.

My days of "voting for the lesser evil" are over. I refuse to let the Democrans and Republicrats (2 sides of the same coin) believe that I have anything at all to do with their treachery. One of them will be crowned - obviously. But I'll be damned if they do it with my consent.

Mike
Peaceful, Law Abiding, Heavily Armed Citizen -- and a Libertarian

"CAN WE TALK"?

Gun control laws do not favor good race relations. Quite the contrary. The effects and burdens of gun control ( gun restriction) laws are suffered almost entirely by law abiding,responsible, white Americans who,for the mostpart don't need gun laws to prevent violence that they arn't doing. More outrageously is the arbitrary and nonsensical content and focus of anti gun legislation that renders hobyists and hunters uncertain as to their legal status and in potential legal jeopardy. Conversely,a disproportionate amount of violence in the US is concentrated in predominately non white,drug and gang infested urban areas where police forces generally exist in a perpetual and almost institutionalized equilibrium with criminals.
These "inconvenient truths" are a corrosive factor in race relations. We,the law abiding gun owners of America are being squeezed in a legislative vise because of violent tendencies that other demographic groups can't seem to control.
Not good! If the anti gun agendas of either of the Democrats (or McCain?) become law, effectiveness of the restrictions will be measurable by the number of coroners reports attributing homicidal deaths to slit throats and beheadings. If I wern't a gun owner already, I'd become one fast.

"CAN WE TALK"?

Gun control laws do not favor good race relations. Quite the contrary. The effects and burdens of gun control ( gun restriction) laws are suffered almost entirely by law abiding,responsible, white Americans who,for the mostpart don't need gun laws to prevent violence that they arn't doing. More outrageously is the arbitrary and nonsensical content and focus of anti gun legislation that renders hobyists and hunters uncertain as to their legal status and in potential legal jeopardy. Conversely,a disproportionate amount of violence in the US is concentrated in predominately non white,drug and gang infested urban areas where police forces generally exist in a perpetual and almost institutionalized equilibrium with criminals.
These "inconvenient truths" are a corrosive factor in race relations. We,the law abiding gun owners of America are being squeezed in a legislative vise because of violent tendencies that other demographic groups can't seem to control.
Not good! If the anti gun agendas of either of the Democrats (or McCain?) become law, effectiveness of the restrictions will be measurable by the number of coroners reports attributing homicidal deaths to slit throats and beheadings. If I wern't a gun owner already, I'd become one fast.

If Obama is elected, and Hillary is his Veep, I'm not sure that Obama would live to take the oath of office.

This is a perfect example of how/why the NRA is quickly losing it's 'true strength' in American politics.

These 'positions' aren't reflective of any real policies or principles at all. They are campaign statements about an issue that these candidates (none of the candidates!)care much about.

I'm a gun-owner, but that doesn't make me a gun-voter. I shoot my guns 2-3 times a month. Why on earth would I allow this recreational activity to have such undue influence on the way I utilize the MOST sacred right I have as an American.

That being said, I'll be the first one in line to rally against anyone who tries to unfairly regulate legal and responsible gun ownership and use.

But pretty soon my fellow gun owners will realize that there isn't a liberal boogey-man waiting to grab their guns.

Maybe then the NRA can get out of politics and focus on shooting and hunting. After all isn't that why we own guns?

Come election day in November 08 I will vote the way I have pretty much voted since I became of voting age (21) in 54.....I will vote for whoever I figure is the lessor of the evils.

That said, I believe that every adult man and woman residing in these United States should possess, and know how to use, a combat rifle (with ammunication) of his or her choice. Like it or not America is slipping into a political abyss from which there can be no peaceful escape.

In school I hated the study of History and didn't really pay much attention. However, what I did learn is that over and over history is repeated.

How do you know when a Clinton is LYING:
something is coming out of their mouths!

Our Freedoms must come first...
send the illegals back where they came from.

Join the NRA
and
Vote

MIKE HUCKABEE For PRESIDENT!!!

All of the politicians find that they can cas say that they SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT. What they don't say is that many of them support their collectivist interpretation of Amendment II and the Bill of Rights and that it is perfectly fine to disarm civilians who are not in a government controlled militia.

As a Jewess in the US, I would like to remind all that America wasn't won with a registered gun. And criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!!

Ah... I don't care too much about this issue. But if you really do care about gun rights then obviously Ron Paul is your man.

Romney has stated quite clearly that he believes the 2nd ammendment is about hunting and maybe sport shooting. No where have have I seen him support the 2nd ammendment in terms of it's true meaning, which is defense of self and defense of the community. He has spoken in favor banning of "assault" weapons, and weapons of "unusual lethality or power" (whatever that means ???). He clearly fails at a conservative interpretation of the 2nd ammendment.

To my understanding, hewould have supported the one from 1994, not the new version. Doubtful about this as a flip flop.

Washingtonian said: "...as far as i was aware, those are 2 different weapons used for 2 different purposes."

The right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting and, just to enlighten you, many hunters do indeed like to hunt with handguns. Similarly, many folks prefer some sort of long gun for self defense. Don't try to put everything into a box like a politician. heh

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

There is no ban on full-autos. There is a tax levied on them since 1930s, and severe penalties for owning one without paying the tax. In 1986, manufacturing and importing them for sale to private citizens were banned. But there is no ban.

When Congress levied the tax, they admitted they _didn't have the power to ban them_ or by Jeebus they would have. United States v. Rock Island Armory, Inc., 773 F.Supp. 117 (C.D.Ill. 1991)

By the same standard, DC has no power to ban an entire class of firearm either. Wonder if any amicus briefs for DC v Heller will cite Rock Island?

Nice misquote ABC. The word was "support" not "endorsement". Big difference.

Obama wants to give illegal aliens drivers license. A promise just to get votes. Now this gun lie. Can't anybody tell even from Obama's little bit of shady past he is really bad news.

geez tapper - I guess fox news wasn't hiring?

MITT the self proclaimed life long hunter..............that is of varmints and such things.

Riiiiight, Mitt is the man we can count on to protect our 2nd Amendment rights ..... in EVEN numbered years that is.

As for MITT, he couldn't figure the business end of an AK-47 from the business end of sonic super care high speed multi-setting electric toothbrush. He couldn't tell the diffence between an AR-15 to Fifty-Six, AR.

VOTE HUCK, he's locked and loaded.

DirtCrashr simple reason to that the mainstream media and the libs are against the Constitution, so they try to marginalize it!

to be honest i dont see any contradiction in Obama's statement. He said he had no inention of taking away hunters' guns but that he supports a ban on hand guns...how is that a contradiction? as far as i was aware, those are 2 different weapons used for 2 different purposes.

now, i'm not saying that i completely agree with such loose gun control (ie. allowing hunting guns/rifles but banning hand guns)...but i don't see where the contradiction you're talking about lies.

The questionaire that he blamed on a staffer had a lot of first person language in it and he also never disassociated himself from it until after he started running for President. Also, regardless of that he is VERY VERY pro gun CONTROL but he was not clear about this in Idaho when he said he strongly supported the 2nd amendment. Talk about saying anything to win.

Actually if you read the above correctly he said he would not sign any newly written legislation on gun control, the one that expired was not newly written!

As far as Obama, is he going to have an assistant run the country! He is scary because he does not take a position at all, just change for highr taxes and weaker people!

McCain comes marginally down on the other side of some issues from me. For instance I supported Rumsfeld; McCain was right as it turned out. You do better acknowledging we are in a war with Islamic radicals in Iraq, formerly a state with WMD ambitions, and Iran which McCain does than if you don't. Waterboarding I would support in Bush's administration but I don't thnk is critical. Ron Rosenbaum's blogpost in Pajamas Media shows what a creature of 'what you want to see' Romney is.

Will McCain make a POW out of the USA?

How many more men and women is McCain willing to sacrifice to preserve Bush’s war legacy? Will McCain surrender the borders to Mexico through Amnesty and his Open Border agenda? Will McCain surrender your wallet to special interest groups and entitlements to illegal aliens? Will McCain surrender Roe vs. Wade to liberals and partial birth advocates?

Will you surrender your vote to McCain on Super Tuesday?

Why do people keep talking about "fully-automatic assault guns"? Those are two different categories.

The assault weapons ban focused on semi-auto guns that 1) looked mean, and 2) held more rounds than your average rifle.

Since the 1934 National Firearms Act, ownership of fully automatic machine guns has been strictly limited.

I don't think many people are arguing for easing restrictions on machine guns.

The concern among gun owners is that Congress has shown a willingness to outlaw certain types of semi-auto guns (which is what most long guns are) simply because of their look and clip size.

Ray,
I assume you meant Stalin. The Clinton's are much worse than Lennin ever was.
Lennin believed in what he was doing. The Clinton's believe in nothing that does not increase their ill gotten wealth, and fit with their own sense of personal entitlement and quest for more power.
Of course we already know Hillary has more guts, toughness, personal conviction, and just downright human goodness than Rabin and Mandela put togather (should probabally throw in Mother Theresa too).

We know this this because Bill Clinton, who, in his own words is "always right",
told us so.

It scares the hell out of me that these people have not yet been seen for what they are. How is it possible to have such an obtuse voting block that continues to not see what is before them.

Anyone who has seen the movie "Idiocracy" can draw their own conclusions about where our country is headed. If nothing else, the changing demographics of this country are speeding us right along...

"I can see no reason for private citizens to own fully automatic assault weapons."

Didn't see anything in any of the article or questions that mentioned the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the FOP Act of 1986.

I can see no reason for private citizens to own fully automatic assault weapons.

It is a militia weapon?

Obama was on the board of one of the biggest anti-gun groups in America ...
He's a lying con man ...

It seems like for the past week, all we've seen is smiling obama with his different celebrity friends.There're all these adoring stories about the new king of the camelot, but where's the critical approach...

Why does the Media so impulsively and reflexively categorize the 2nd Amendment as a right-wing issue when plenty of Democrats enjoy it? Does the Media want to distance itself as far as possible from the only thing, as even Mao pointed-out, that truly backstops the 1st Amendment's ability to play it's shtick?
I would have voted for Richardson on that basis alone - not Obama who was a Board Member of the Joyce Foundation, the primary money behind extreme gun control. Can't vote for Mitt because he's a reflexive big-state gun-banner as well.

I prefer the evil I know (McCain) to the evil I don't know (Romney). That is why I am voting for Huckabee.

A Moderate Clinton?

In comparison to whom?

Lenin?

It is pretty comic to see both sides of the aisle do their acrobatics in an attempt to pander to both sides of the gun control issue. I personaly grew up shooting competitively with encouragement from my Grandfather who also taught me the utmost in respect for firearms safety and proper gun handling and edicit. The NRA was different then. They were more into the sport shooting and game hunting scene. Over the years they have most definitely adopted a slippery slope mentality. Much of that as a result of some of the unscrupulous attacks on gun ownership by the nannystate, we know what is best for you far left. That said, I can see no reason for private citizens to own fully automatic assault weapons. In fact many current gun owners, cop's included, have no business with any gun because they are incapable of ALWAYS using the firearm properly. Think about the last police shootout you heard about. Chances are good that the cops will have missed with 95% of the rounds fired. Frankly, that does not make me feel a whole lot safer. My brother and cousin are both in law enforcement and the stories I hear from them about the way their fellow officers handle their weapons would be comic if it were not so scary.
Tough issue, with good arguments to be made on both sides. No, guns do not kill people, to argue so is simply stupid. Given that the "reasonable man" standard has died out with the Great Generation (and truly, they were)and will NEVER be viable again in America (thanks to folks like John Edwards who have gotten fat off of other misery, contrived or real). The trial lawyers have pretty effictively gutted this country of common sense, not to mention money, in pursuit of short term financial gain, power and influence. I have no doubt that 99% of politicians would disarm this country if they thought they could get away with it. I no longer tell most people I am a gun owner because of the connotations it brings up from decades of scare tactics on the left designed to marginalize what they see as the competition(anyone to the right of Joe Lieberman...) What a shame, I spent many seasons hunting deer with my Grandfather (never shot one,watched many go by though) and shooting in NRA matches. It is to bad honesty has become such a scarce good in our society. From our President's on down the common factor is a law degree. We can look there as a root cause.

"I never had sexual relations with that woman", was actually not considered lying by half of our elected "leaders", of course all lawyers, tells us all we need to know.
It is sad to see an enire, very American and unique way of life dying out. Sadder still what used to be a tool to teach young people caution,personal responsibility, the value of discretion and personal accountability has become as loathsome to some as crack cocaine.
The founding fathers would not recognize the country that they passed on to us to nurture and cherish. It has become one giant grab bag with every special interest imaginable looting it as rapidly as possible to be sure they get theirs before it is all gone. Most of the Republicans have been attempting to straddle this fence for as long as I can remember, to sometimes comic effect. The majority of the Democrats would confiscate every thing down to a boys sling shot left to their own devices, with comic and absurd arguments. Both sides are pretty silly about the whole topic. It needs to be remembered why the founding fathers put the second ammendment there in the first place.

I wonder what those same Founding Fathers would advocate now if they saw what had become of this experiment in personal freedom that they knew as the United States of America...

For this election I am voting for Hillary Clinton because she is willing to hear the concern of are nation and not shout us out. I also like Hillary because she is trying to get health care for everyone.I feel that Hillary is the right person for president because she is reaching out and taking her spare time to get involved in are community. Hillary is a very commited hard working person. I also like Hillary because she is a women, we need something new someone to make things right. Hillary is the one we need to vote so make the right choice people.

I think that Hillary Clinton should win the elections. I really want Obama to win but i don't think no one should vote for him because we would be writing his death certificate. I feel this way because we live in a white man's world and we all know that we will never see a black man become president.A white women will be an president before a black male. I feel that Hillary has a better chance to win and become president. I feel like she knows we she is talking about and she will be a great leader to others and the world.

I'd like to see Clinton and Obama both agree to share the ticket, no matter which one of them becomes the nominee.

This would give Democratic voters the two candidates that they have chosen on their ticket, and hopefully would help to keep their campaigns against one another at a more reasoned level.

It would also reduce the amount of ammunition either will supply to the eventual Republican opponent.

once again, obama tries to have both sides of an issue so he can see which one works for his benefit when the election comes. oh, i said that on my questionnaire, but it was my staff that filled it out - right! but if the position was currently popular, he would be touting how brave he was to take the position! or oh, i voted against/for ___, but i hit the wrong button - sounds like i was for it before i was against it, like his pal john kerry.

Ron Paul received more active military donations than all other candidates, both Republican and Democrat, combined. Why do you think this is? Ron Paul can save America, and in fact, he could probably save the entire world FROM America.

romney? obama? mccain? clinton? it matters not who gets the keys to the white house. a continuation of corporate dominance at the expense of regular joes & janes is what's in store for us. we need a true revolutionary who is fight for what is right. i don't see anyone on the horizon that can help america reclaim their rightful position in this crazy world and that's a sobering & depressing thought.

Is that all you got? lol

Turn the page . . .

Obama '08

Man, another issue the republicans will nail Obama on. Yet another reason to support the more moderate Clinton.

Romney... McCain would be right at home in the Democrat party.

I'm voting for Mitt Romney tomorrow because Mitt Romney is the last hope for strong families in America, the last hope for a revolution against the looming recession, and the last hope against terrorists who would love for us to elect McCain so they know they will never be waterboarded or compelled to tell us when they next plan to strap bombs to retarded women and send them into a crowded market. McCain and the Democrats preach a gospel of doom and gloom and have back-stabbed the president at every turn.