Don't go blaming guns

[Obama 2012 1,714]

U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Gun Regulations

In its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

The Court ruled that the individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect communities from gun violence.

The Court rejected the gun lobby's "any gun, for anybody, anywhere" agenda. It again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are permissible.

http://www.bradycent...secondamendment

The SCOTUS was wrong here, as they have been before. 'intent' is everything.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Pssssst! The someone who gets it also clearly indicated a belief we live in a banana republic and if you don't care for a lawmaker it is the lawmakers fault if you shoot them over it.

Really? I mean really. Are you going to play this cheap ####### like this? Grow the hell up.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That is essentially what you've said Paul...

[slim 1,525]

In its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

The Court ruled that the individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect communities from gun violence.

The Court rejected the gun lobby's "any gun, for anybody, anywhere" agenda. It again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are permissible.

bradycenter[/b].org/legalaction/secondamendment"]http://www.bradycent...secondamendment

Seriously? Brady Center? That's who you choose to represent your position?

Go ahead and see how the NRA interpreted that simple decision. The wording is slightly different, believe it or not.

Pssssst! The someone who gets it also clearly indicated a belief we live in a banana republic and if you don't care for a lawmaker it is the lawmakers fault if you shoot them over it.

Much like your misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment you also misinterpreted what he said. Like you do with the amendment, you're using your personal judgement to make it sound the way you want it to instead of actually reading what he said and taking it for what it's worth.

The SCOTUS was wrong here, as they have been before. 'intent' is everything.

SCOTUS wasn't wrong (SCOTUS can't be wrong) they just applied certain personal feelings and "signs of the times" to their decision.

That is essentially what you've said Paul...

When did he say that? Like the ignorant poster above you've failed to read the plain text of Paul's post and instead decided to interpret it the way you see fit.

Edited January 11, 2011 by slim

[^_^ 5,021]

SCOTUS can't be wrong

+1

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Seriously? Brady Center? That's who you choose to represent your position?

Go ahead and see how the NRA interpreted that simple decision. The wording is slightly different, believe it or not.

Much like your misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment you also misinterpreted what he said. Like you do with the amendment, you're using your personal judgement to make it sound the way you want it to instead of actually reading what he said and taking it for what it's worth.

SCOTUS wasn't wrong (SCOTUS can't be wrong) they just applied certain personal feelings and "signs of the times" to their decision.

When did he say that? Like the ignorant poster above you've failed to read the plain text of Paul's post and instead decided to interpret it the way you see fit.

He said exactly that. Just because you turned up late and havent followed the threads, it's not my problem.

[james&olya 1,121]

He said exactly that. Just because you turned up late and havent followed the threads, it's not my problem.

+1

[^_^ 5,021]

+1

-1

Ha, I win!

[slim 1,525]

He said exactly that. Just because you turned up late and havent followed the threads, it's not my problem.

Please post where he said exactly that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why? You can read,the archive if you're truly interested.

It's obviously more important to you than to me.

[^_^ 5,021]

Law makers don't need a secure venue, nor should they get one unless they use their own $$$.

If you're going to get shot, then perhaps it's on you and your policies.

The second amendment is there for that reason. To overthrow an out of control government. There again though, if you're doing this in a small Arizona district, it's a damn waste of time. You want to make a big bang, you've got to think bigger than a lowly congressman and need to take out multiple higher officials.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Thanks \ Pauls first four sentences are clearly his personal thoughts on the issue of political assassination. Sentence 2 being the most disturbing.

And he is abundantly clear, he views the 2nd amendments use in politics the way most folks think of voting or signing a petition. Slim you might want to reconsider who "gets it."

Having concerns about the proliferation, the size, the type, the tragically destructive nature of guns in the hands of the mentally challenged, folks with piss poor judgment, and people who think they are fine tools for handling political differences and not getting the 2nd amendment are two very different issues slim.

[TigerTeddyBear 26]

Guns are like magnets. They attract each other. Most people that I know who own guns are hunters. Deer rifles and such. Maybe a Mossberg for home protection(like me). Most will never be in a situation where they will need to use them against a human being. Most will never have the mental breakdown that would cause them to start a killing spree.

To ignore the fact that we have an issue with gun violence is pretty ignorant. Does anyone really need a thirty round clip? I ran into a friend who is a DPS officer yesterday coming home from church. He not only wishes that those types of clips were illegal, he actually used the words "poor shots", "nra imbeciles", and "Lord help us all." Sent a chill down my spine.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Does anyone really need a thirty round clip? I ran into a friend who is a DPS officer yesterday coming home from church. He not only wishes that those types of clips were illegal, he actually used the words "poor shots", "nra imbeciles", and "Lord help us all." Sent a chill down my spine.

30 round clips exist?

[^_^ 5,021]

Here we go again, yet another trip down irrelevant minutia path.