Obama Gets Gun-Shy

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

See the link for a discussion of the facts regarding guns smuggled into Mexico.

90% of the assault rifles the drug cartels are using to war their own wars came over the counter from gun dealers in Texas and Arizona.

Just read that Mexican police have taken an Anti-aircraft gun from the drug dealers. Let's see how the Mexican government can say that came from the U.S.

God took seven days to create the world. Obama is expected to take it all on and return us to a state of bliss in the Gardens of Eden within his first 90 days of office.

Guns, children's health insurance, North Korea, the Economy, Mexico's drug cartels, Iraq, NATO, Russia, Medicare, Afghanistan, G20, Guantanamo, the Republicans, Education, the Press, financial stimulus, the DEmocrats, the White House dog ...

solve them all immediately!!!

President Obama is from Illinois. We hunt in this state all the time, and everyone knows this is the bluest of blue states.

As a Green Beret who volunteered and served with the 5th in Vietnam, I find all the more reason to speak to the insanity of the gun gurus and pc rambos. Iraq has guns on the street. Afghanistan has guns on the street. Somalia has guns on the street. Africa has guns on the street. Mexico has guns on the street. America has guns on the street. Small minds think alike. The 2nd Amendment is no excuse for lawlessness with criminal intent

http://www.comecleanamerica.net/?tag=/guns

OK total mind blower here

Let???s say we follow the guidelines as written by the 2nd amendment. As a well regulated Militia, all those who need to possess firearms report once a month to the local Armed forces reserve station, reporting all firearms you possess and ammunition you have on stock if needed by our country. If your not needed you go home, and you???re given a small government monetary fund for National Defense purposes, those folks are in fact keeping up National Defense because they are in fact keeping arms in stock, if nothing else it should be a tax write off.

If needed then you step up to protect area???s like New Orleans after Katrina.

Scary thought if you think about today, WOW so we will allow anyone who is willing to report what they have keep firearms as long as they are not convicted criminals, they will in fact become the law.

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. This is the second way it is written, but a second ???, ??? is added as well as capital S in state.

We if we want true control over illegal guns have a real amendment written so our courts will not argue for years over words or , capital letters. Then and only then will we have true gun control.

Wow, Isikoff and Smalley say AK47s are flooding into the country...what an outrageous lie! NO regulations controlling the importation of fully automatic weapons have been lifted, virtually or otherwise. A real AK47 costs thousands of dollars and requires fingerprinting and an FBI background check. But, I think Isikoff and Smalley know this. They are continuing the long propaganda campaign aimed at scaring Americans into believing that an assault weapons ban means controlling automatic weapons. The last thing they want people to realize is that an assault weapons ban would only control rifles that function exactly the same as many common deer rifles, but happen to be styled like military weapons. If that works, then they can ban the traditionally styled deer rifles.

I want to give credit where credit is due....PrezBo-Zo avoided screwing up the pirate adventure......He should take a BOW.....how does biker chick say it LMFAO!!!!

NOBAMA!!!

ps....Tea Parties attendence will approach 1,000,000 tomorrow....Wonder what PMSNBC will report....

What a great argument, problem is you???re not getting my point???

But that is normal; most people don???t get the written word???

The 2nd amendment is the most argued of all the amendments, and usually end with a 5/4 vote from the Supreme Court latest being the decision last year over the DC gun laws???

My point if you are to attempt Gun Control then you need to start with an Amendment that to the 2nd amendment???i.e. just make it clear???
In Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, with the majority opinion stating that:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The dissenting opinion stated that:
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ???collective right??? or an ???individual right.??? Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
So lets just start with making this single sentence clear and in English that can not be argued???then and only then can you attempt to accomplish gun control.
My point was this in 1990???s the Clinton White House passed a law called the Assault Weapons Ban, silly law that made selling and AK 47 a crime unless you put a thumb hole in the stock and ground off the bayonet lug???ie the making of the MAK 90 but both guns fire the 7.62 round???.and I am sure both are just as deadly???
If youre going to attempt gun control you have to start with the 2nd admendment, and then and only then can you attempt any kind of real gun control???

What a great argument, problem is you???re not getting my point???

But that is normal; most people don???t get the written word???

The 2nd amendment is the most argued of all the amendments, and usually end with a 5/4 vote from the Supreme Court latest being the decision last year over the DC gun laws???

My point if you are to attempt Gun Control then you need to start with an Amendment that to the 2nd amendment???i.e. just make it clear???
In Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, with the majority opinion stating that:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The dissenting opinion stated that:
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ???collective right??? or an ???individual right.??? Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
So lets just start with making this single sentence clear and in English that can not be argued???then and only then can you attempt to accomplish gun control.
My point was this in 1990???s the Clinton White House passed a law called the Assault Weapons Ban, silly law that made selling and AK 47 a crime unless you put a thumb hole in the stock and ground off the bayonet lug???ie the making of the MAK 90 but both guns fire the 7.62 round???.and I am sure both are just as deadly???
If youre going to attempt gun control you have to start with the 2nd admendment, and then and only then can you attempt any kind of real gun control???

But that is normal; most people don???t get the written word???

The 2nd amendment is the most argued of all the amendments, and usually end with a 5/4 vote from the Supreme Court latest being the decision last year over the DC gun laws???

My point if you are to attempt Gun Control then you need to start with an Amendment that to the 2nd amendment???i.e. just make it clear???
In Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, with the majority opinion stating that:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The dissenting opinion stated that:
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ???collective right??? or an ???individual right.??? Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
So lets just start with making this single sentence clear and in English that can not be argued???then and only then can you attempt to accomplish gun control.
My point was this in 1990???s the Clinton White House passed a law called the Assault Weapons Ban, silly law that made selling and AK 47 a crime unless you put a thumb hole in the stock and ground off the bayonet lug???ie the making of the MAK 90 but both guns fire the 7.62 round???.and I am sure both are just as deadly???
If youre going to attempt gun control you have to start with the 2nd admendment, and then and only then can you attempt any kind of real gun control???

I wouldn't have a major problem with "assault weapons" such as the one pictured being banned as they serve no useful sel-defense purpose. However it is clear from H.R. 45 AKA The Blair Hold Firearms Licensing Act, that those idiots in Washington cant' tell the difference between a true "Assault" weapon and one that is simply a semi-auto such as a semi-auto hand gun , rifle or shotgun. The aforementioned are useful not only for self/home defense, but as hunting weaoons as well.

We don't need more laws just the sttrict enforcement of the laws we already have on the books. If they are going to ban "Assault" weapons, then at least have someone draft the bill that actually understands the true meaning of the term and I hope they will realize their new law will change nothing other than taking "Assalut" weapons out of the hands of law biding citizens, since the criminals will still be able to get them.