Democrats Push Weapons Ban

It is more important that the living are able to prevent harm from an attacker than to disarm the living in name of the unfortunate deceased. It sounds uncaring and cruel, yea. To keep picking a scab invites infection for which no cure is known.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

If squashing any part of the constitution would silence or eliminate my worst enemy I would stand beside that enemy to oppose the constitutional change. You today, me tomorrow, different mess from usual source. Only grand scale fools would throw away their life vests because somebody with a bully pulpit says the extra weight will capsize a life boat should one come.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

You saw the latest agenda on electronic chip user identidy and authorization gun lock systems ? Palm print recognition or ring -bracelet chip transmitter. You get permission to have gun, you get a personal chip ID registered. You need to shoot, the gun allows you to fire if you are the authorized registered owner. So, the family awakens to gun fire and you fumble in the dark for bracelet, unlock gun, are killed ant the family cannot use the gun that recognizes you alone as authorized user.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Icecreamed: " WHATEVER the Amendment may mean, it is a BAR ONLY to FEDERAL action, not extending to STATE"

BUZZZ!!! WRONG!!!!

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states.

The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and APPLIES TO THE STATE.

The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states."

Creamed continues to confirm my theory: a Liberal is a LIBERAL because they are just plain UNINFORMED and OUT OF TOUCH with the FACTS.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Gun Controls Freaks LOST in DC versus Heller.

So just STFU and get over it.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Get it through your thick skulls:

"the activities [the Amendment] protects ARE NOT LIMITED TO MILITIA SERVICE, NOR IS AN INDIVIDUAL'S ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHT CONTINGENT UPON HIS OR HER CONTINUED OR INTERMITTENT ENROLLMENT IN THE MILITIA." "

Get it through your thick skulls:

"the activities [the Amendment] protects ARE NOT LIMITED TO MILITIA SERVICE, NOR IS AN INDIVIDUAL'S ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHT CONTINGENT UPON HIS OR HER CONTINUED OR INTERMITTENT ENROLLMENT IN THE MILITIA."

Get it through your thick skulls:

"the activities [the Amendment] protects ARE NOT LIMITED TO MILITIA SERVICE, NOR IS AN INDIVIDUAL'S ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHT CONTINGENT UPON HIS OR HER CONTINUED OR INTERMITTENT ENROLLMENT IN THE MILITIA."

Get it through your thick skulls:

"the activities [the Amendment] protects ARE NOT LIMITED TO MILITIA SERVICE, NOR IS AN INDIVIDUAL'S ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHT CONTINGENT UPON HIS OR HER CONTINUED OR INTERMITTENT ENROLLMENT IN T

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"The (Supreme) court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects ARE NOT LIMITED TO MILITIA SERVICE, NOR IS AN INDIVIDUAL'S ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHT CONTINGENT UPON HIS OR HER CONTINUED OR INTERMITTENT ENROLLMENT IN THE MILITIA." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions."

Don't care what some punk a&& law professor at Cornell th

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Icecream F***K Cornell Law, this what the Supreme Court RULED:

"The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense. The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to INDIVIDUALS; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection.

Do ONLY MILITIAS get FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS?

BOZO!

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Don't buy the government updated and approved paper-mach’e firing pins.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Have any of you gun aficiandos noted that the new Frankenstein gun rules bans "semiautomatic" handguns with REMOVABLE clips"!!!!!

That is like banning automobiles with removable gas cap!!!!

What do you do, after you fire 10 shots, return the gun to the manufacturer to refill it like a propane tank???

WTF????

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

How are the toughest gun laws in the nation working in Chicago:

"CHICAGO – At least five people were gunned down Saturday in Chicago, including a 34-year-old man whose mother had already lost her three other children to shootings. Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother Shirley's youngest child, was shot in the head while sitting in a parked car on the city's West Side. A 21-year-old man who was also in the car was wounded, police said."

MASSIVE EPIC FAIL!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Icecream I have given a 1/2 dozen paragraphs here about the definition of "well regulated militia"

1) the framers of the Constitution (Madison, Jefferson) WROTE that the Militia was every ABLE BODIED MAN . (NOt women, BTW, WOMEN were not have guns back in the day!)

2) The definition of "well regulated" means "Functioning well" or " properly working" militia. The

There were many references to a "Well Regulated Congress" as well. Who "regulates" Congress??

3) In 2008 the Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY RULED in the case of Washington DC versus Heller that the Regulated Militia was every CITIZEN of the United States (Men and women).

Thats IT! DONE! FINISHED! Highest court in the land has ruled.

So stop staggering around, wipe the drool off your chin, and try to pretend you have a grade school comprehension of the facts.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

the original "bushmasters" here will be the ones that would protect all of you in the event of a ground war here.we practically lived in these woods.we can't save you politicians with no weapons.disarm us and you'll just be digging your own grave.some of us are expert marksmen[one bullet=one kill] and some aren't.i earned my ribbon.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"Washingtons Farewell Address"

****senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.htm

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ice..there you go again...twisting the words of the second amendment

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

in the current proposed gun ban law, congress is exempt..WHY IS THAT?

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shark, you're very sick! Please die of old age as soon as possible. Then, you will find out that your relationship with "the Almighty" isn't what you think it is!

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shark, evolution is smoke and mirrors. Are you on something? You mtruly are an ignorant slutt.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ban cars. most criminals are to lazy to walk to a crime location. Forhead tattoo every person who registers a weapon. cut the chase and be done with the liberal agenda.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

when the 2nd was written i don't think they had the technology to press a key and transfer decades future earmings of the citizens to foreign countires as aid.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Want the security provided by strict gun laws? then move to Chicago.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

no gun ban will make anyone safer...guns are already banned in many places, which have just turned these gun free Zones into shooting galleries for crazy nut jobs...it really is that simple...

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Obama is the muslim president.

He can fool the American sheeple but let's see him take away the guns of the middle east madmen.

Gun laws are no more about public safety than Obamacare is about providing health care to the needy.

Just like global warming and the theory of evolution, it is all a big lie. Smoke and mirrors. Hocus-pocus.

The truth: It is all about control. Control over a free people. Putting more chains, restraints, and oppression on law-abiding citizens. More particularly, the independent minded individuals. Those who think for themselves; not prone to blindly follow others.

Democrats always want to force control over others....they also want to put more & more people in bondage to government handouts.

Lies, deception, subtlety, hoodwinkery.....

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"Do you feel LUCKY today, PUNK??" dah.

Kinda says it all as to the world of dah.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

In a Fox News survey, two-thirds of Americans said they would "defy" a federal gun ban and keep their guns if the government ever passed a law to "take your guns." The survey asked respondents, "If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?" Sixty-five percent of those surveyed said they would "defy the law." Specifically, 70% of Republicans, 68% of conservatives, 52% of Democrats, and 59% of liberals said they would "defy" a federal gun ban to keep their guns. The poll surveyed 1,008 registered U.S. voters between Jan. 15-17.

BBBWGAHAHAHAH! 59% of the liberals opposed it!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »