As per usual they are walking the fence on this issue. Not actually saying anything and denying previous voting records. Obama says a questionaire he signed does not really reflect his views and McCain is using his Republican status to hide his gun grabbing ways ("I carried a .45 in the Navy"). Do you guys think either one of them actually has the balls to try to sign any executive order or really push for gun control the way Clinton did in 1994, or will they just passively sign bills into law and provide lip service to their parties?
There's a reason Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul aren't the ones running against each other. They are going to weasel their way about saying what they believe. Obama doesn't have a record of being at all gun friendly, and McCain does, but both will blow with the wind, like any good major party candidate should if they want to get elected. Both require voters that don't agree with their own views on gun control for either to make too bold a stand. In short, don't hold your breath, and discount anything that's said. If being anti-gun control is your single issue for voting, that's what the Libertarian Party is for.
I agree at heart they are both gun grabbers but I am wondering how much they will stick their neck out. I think Obama is possibly not experienced enough to learn how Clinton screwed himself out of a congress by pushing his Crime Bill so hard.
I'm pretty sure Obama (or at least his advisors) are aware that proposing gun legislation turns off more potential voters from outside his core than energizing those within it. But I agree. The Crime Bill got a lot of people to vote republican in 96. Clinton said as much in hindsight, and Hillary was much quieter in her presidential campaign about guns than she was in the 90's.
If its one thing that effects my life as an American right now it's that I can't defend my family with my guns. Enough of them, and fast enough. If my nightmares come true, I'd be like Donkey Kong without a barrel, and I'd have to rely on my unhuman monkey strength to beat them inhumanely to death.
Even Bill Clinton himself felt great conflict about the flawed AWB of 94'...He even implied a great number of seats were lost on this account after the fact... I believe in gun control,...BUT..We already have reasonable gun restriction...The 1934 NFA... Anything more is infringement with questionable motives... P.S. CaseyH, They still have legal API .50 BMG for sale at CTD...Check it out! ... P.S.S. Check out the new XDM in .40...! (Bi-tone w/ night sights) ...shortest trigger reset avail...(I'm tempted)
What is the Constitutional basis for this? This is the entirety of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Where in there are you able to find a dividing line to determine that the laws already in place are not Constitutional infringement but anything additional would be?
You are right...Just the term "ARMS" in the Constitution, which could be MOABS...You are right no need for silly restriction. Give us all MOABS!
Unless you're reading only what you want to, the Consistutition either says the government can or can't regulate guns. Nowhere in there does it suggest a degree - especially given that none of the weapons we're talking about even existed when the Constitution was written. If you're going to cite the Constitution, you can't use a middle ground because you'd be picking an arbitrary line that's not written in there.
Great imagination...No where. No where does the Consistutition either says the government can or can't regulate guns.
So you're suggesting banning guns entirely would NOT violate 2nd Amendment, in your opinion? What do you believe the 2nd Amendment says?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
correct which is why i support no restrictions. which is totally off the subject of McCain and Obama being gun grabbers at heart and discussing which one is stupid enough to try something.
Thanks for the useless quote that's already be posted. What do you think it means? I assumed you actually posted here to have real discussions - it seems I was wrong.
I think it means a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. CaseyH,...You know Obama is the one more likely don't be silly...
I think you'll get the same with either one - the ones that will pass are things that have very, very broad-based support. If you have McCain, he has no incentive to piss off his base. The only things that will pass are things with wide enough support to override any veto. If you have been watching Obama, you see that his whole focus (FISA, oil drilling, etc) is finding compromises that are acceptable to a wide variety of people. Which means he's unlikely to try to push through a 51-49 type bill. Some people say the reason for this is weakness or whatever; but really, it's simple (in my opinion): the only things that are sustainable are programs that are pushed through with bipartisan support. Otherwise, as soon as the other party gets power, they'll kill it. You saw it with the assault weapons ban. You may see a lot of it with Bush programs and tax cuts next year. The ones that survive for the longterm (welfare reform, for example) are the ones where both parties participated in crafting it.
I believe our forefathers wanted a mechanism in place to keep the government from gaining too much control, so for them--I believe "militia" and "the people" are synonymous. So it appears—to me—that they wanted “the people” to be well regulated. To me—“regulated” is synonymous with “controlled.” So we should make sure our people are well controlled, but we shouldn’t infringe their right to keep and bear arms. Not entirely consistent. It seems to me our forefathers—in their infinite wisdom—were able to look several hundred years into the future and pander to both sides of this argument. If you are a gun lover, it is pretty easy to point to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” and if you want guns gone (excuse me…I mean “controlled”), you can hang your hope on the “well REGULATED militia, being necessary…..” part. I know a lot of much smarter people than me have argued over this ad nauseam, but if nothing else, it seems our forefathers wanted the ordinary citizen to be able to keep and bear arms, but with this very short sentence, they encouraged us to engage in a continual discourse on the subject. I’m sure they couldn’t envision a MOAB, but surely they knew the musket would evolve.
So you think it means something that Constitutional lawyers can't decide what it means. Great. So again, since you avoided it the first time, do you believe that the Constitution prevents the complete ban of handguns?
