Leading Democratic Candidates Call For Severe Restrictions on Our Second Amendment Ri

GGReporter · 01-19-2008, 09:26 PM

You Tube

More...

Windwalker · 01-20-2008, 09:41 AM

Guns don't commit crimes, people do. We already have laws against people using guns to commit crimes. We need more enforcement of these laws, not gun bans.

GlockMeister · 01-20-2008, 01:46 PM

Do they listen to what they themselves even say? They all pretty much say that law abiding citizens have the right to own a gun and shoot and shouldn't have to worry about there 2nd Amendment rights (like I believe that) but at the same time a hunter doesn't need an AK47 to hunt? I didn't put it word for word but listen to what Edwards says?

Now wait a minute, if they know it isn't the hunter or the law abiding gun owner committing the crimes with those style of guns then why take them away from them and punish them with a weapons ban and more importantly why have firearms/weapons on this ban list that are used for hunting and sport shooting like Ruger 10/22s or the bolt for a specific gun. Bolt action rifles aren't an assault weapon and to be quite honest, no weapon on the ban list is a true assault weapon? NONE of them shoot in full auto mode and ALL are semi-auto. So when will one of them get a clue.

And as for the stats of more officers being killed by guns since the last weapons ban ended, I believe that, I honestly do, but, I also truly believe most of the officers that were killed by guns were killed buy AKs,ARs and any others that have mistakingly been labeled as assault weapons but rather most were killed by your standard revolver or semi-auto pistol.

Yes it is still sad and wrong and makes me angry. But it wasn't the gun that killed the officer, it was the human being that pulled the trigger. The gun didn't grow legs and walk over to the officer and pull its' own trigger. I doubt it was even a registered law abiding gun owner that killed even one of the what 32 officers they said were killed in Vegas. Yes, at times even they, that registered law abiding gun owner can get pushed over the limit or snap or go "postal". But it still isn't the gun, it is the human being, the gun was just the instrument used. Had the gun not been there a car could have been used or a hammer or a baseball bat or a knife or a host of many other things.

If a person wants to kill they will kill. And what scares me most is most states won't let someone protect themselves unless on their own property and their life or family members life is threatened. Many crimes happen outside the home or property. Why can't I protect myself sitting in my car at a stop light? The car is still my property? I didn't ask the prick to come and try and take my car or my money or possibly my life while I was running to the store to get my sick son his medicine (only an example, he's not ill).

Come on people (politicians that is) get a clue and if you're going to try and fix anything if and when one of you are elected, fix our heath care system problems or are illegal immigrant problem, or some other more important problem. There is a host of others that in my opinion are more important and should be the concern of our Government. Quite using guns and gun control as the platform to try and get yourself elected. Either by being for or against. The ones' against it are trying to get the votes of the anti-gunners and at the same time the ones for guns are trying to get the votes from the pro-gunners.

G-Meister

NRAJOE · 01-20-2008, 01:58 PM

Thats why Bill Richardson will never get the Dem nomination...HE believes in the 2nd unlike his commie cronies...

troy2000 · 01-20-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NRAJOE

Thats why Bill Richardson will never get the Dem nomination...HE believes in the 2nd unlike his commie cronies...

I'd have voted for him...doubt I'll have the chance.

GlockMeister · 01-20-2008, 04:23 PM

Didn't he (Bill Richardson) already drop out of the running?

G-Meister

Cyrano · 01-20-2008, 05:04 PM

I don't trust any of the Democratic Party's candidates, Troy2000. Even the ones who pay lip service to the Second Amendment guaranteeing our individual rights are laboring under their party's ideological opposition to the private citizen's owning firearms.

Perhaps I'm being a bit extreme here, but I suspect the Democrats are afraid that one day soon a whole big lot of American gunowners are going to show up in the Capitol Building, weapons in hand, secure all the entrances and TELL the gummint, "We have had enough of your anti-American, anti-Constitutional bull. We have a list here of all the antigunners in the House and the Senate here. The antis have the option of resigning their seats effective immediately and leaving public life forever, or of being shot for the crime of attempting to subvert the Constitution. We don't give a damn which. Your call."

Now you and I both know that while this is a charming fantasy, it's not going to happen. We gunowners are much more responsible than that. But the fact remains that gun laws are not aimed at the criminals. They have already indicated they live outside the law. They do not care about the law, and they will get firearms by any means they can think of, up to and including buying them outside the country and smuggling them in. All gun laws are aimed at restricting or impeding the right of honest citizens to keep, bear and use firearms. And it is the Democrats who are pushing these laws, not the Republicans. They are the ones who are afraid of the people they supposedly represent.

I can't get behind any of the Democrats. I trust none of them, particularly the front-runners. They are playing the same old "Promise her anything but give her Arpege" game they have always played with regard to gun rights. They'll say whatever they think the public wants to hear to win the election, and then pursue their own evil agendas until it gets near election time again. Trouble is, the only Republican candidate I'd trust not to meddle with our civil rights is Ron Paul, and he's a no-hoper. None of the Republican front-runners has credentials I consider sound as far as our Second Amendment rights go.

We all have to fire up our computers and write letters to any candidate that looks like they have a chance. (Don't send emails, by the way. For some reason, politicans pay more attention to snail mail than email, because it implies you are making a greater effort to contact them.) We have to commend any pro-gun actions they have taken (hard as those may be to find), and condemn any anti-gun actions they have taken, citing chapter, line and verse so they can see we are intelligent voters and not cranks.

If enough of us do this, it may finally occur to antigun candidates like Obama and Clinton that the American Gunowner is a sleeping giant that they would be very wise not to arouse. They may finally realize that we are already awake, alert and annoyed with them.

troy2000 · 01-20-2008, 05:20 PM

Cyrano, if the South hadn't deserted the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it wouldn't be an anti-gun party today. And as Southerners gradually get fed up with the Republican Party and return, it'll become progressively less anti-gun.

Windwalker · 01-20-2008, 05:22 PM

Obama maybe, Clinton no. She has her own agenda and will pursue it to the best of her ability. It bodes nothing but ill for gun owners and our 2nd Amendment Rights.

mym1a · 01-20-2008, 05:42 PM

All I can say us legal gun owners have a responbility to police our selves in respect to our handling of fire arms.a thousand positive incidents are never reported, but let one of us make a mistake and it makes national head line news!we have to maintain and accept a much higher level of control of our behavior then other citizens,Don't prove the non believers correct!they may not believe in what they say about the 2nd ammendment but it appears we have their attention! their approach on this issue appears to have soften over the last 15 years.we will know after election day ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy2000

Cyrano, if the South hadn't deserted the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it wouldn't be an anti-gun party today. And as Southerners gradually get fed up with the Republican Party and return, it'll become progressively less anti-gun.

you have a point troy2000

01-20-2008, 01:46 PM	#3
GlockMeister Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northern Illinois Posts: 5,497	Do they listen to what they themselves even say? They all pretty much say that law abiding citizens have the right to own a gun and shoot and shouldn't have to worry about there 2nd Amendment rights (like I believe that) but at the same time a hunter doesn't need an AK47 to hunt? I didn't put it word for word but listen to what Edwards says? Now wait a minute, if they know it isn't the hunter or the law abiding gun owner committing the crimes with those style of guns then why take them away from them and punish them with a weapons ban and more importantly why have firearms/weapons on this ban list that are used for hunting and sport shooting like Ruger 10/22s or the bolt for a specific gun. Bolt action rifles aren't an assault weapon and to be quite honest, no weapon on the ban list is a true assault weapon? NONE of them shoot in full auto mode and ALL are semi-auto. So when will one of them get a clue. And as for the stats of more officers being killed by guns since the last weapons ban ended, I believe that, I honestly do, but, I also truly believe most of the officers that were killed by guns were killed buy AKs,ARs and any others that have mistakingly been labeled as assault weapons but rather most were killed by your standard revolver or semi-auto pistol. Yes it is still sad and wrong and makes me angry. But it wasn't the gun that killed the officer, it was the human being that pulled the trigger. The gun didn't grow legs and walk over to the officer and pull its' own trigger. I doubt it was even a registered law abiding gun owner that killed even one of the what 32 officers they said were killed in Vegas. Yes, at times even they, that registered law abiding gun owner can get pushed over the limit or snap or go "postal". But it still isn't the gun, it is the human being, the gun was just the instrument used. Had the gun not been there a car could have been used or a hammer or a baseball bat or a knife or a host of many other things. If a person wants to kill they will kill. And what scares me most is most states won't let someone protect themselves unless on their own property and their life or family members life is threatened. Many crimes happen outside the home or property. Why can't I protect myself sitting in my car at a stop light? The car is still my property? I didn't ask the prick to come and try and take my car or my money or possibly my life while I was running to the store to get my sick son his medicine (only an example, he's not ill). Come on people (politicians that is) get a clue and if you're going to try and fix anything if and when one of you are elected, fix our heath care system problems or are illegal immigrant problem, or some other more important problem. There is a host of others that in my opinion are more important and should be the concern of our Government. Quite using guns and gun control as the platform to try and get yourself elected. Either by being for or against. The ones' against it are trying to get the votes of the anti-gunners and at the same time the ones for guns are trying to get the votes from the pro-gunners. G-Meister __________________ I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6!

01-20-2008, 01:58 PM	#4
NRAJOE Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Toledo,OH Posts: 19,052 Images: 3	Thats why Bill Richardson will never get the Dem nomination...HE believes in the 2nd unlike his commie cronies... __________________ U.S. Army 1976-1979 237th Combat Engineers Heilbronn, Germany

01-20-2008, 04:23 PM	#6
GlockMeister Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northern Illinois Posts: 5,497	Didn't he (Bill Richardson) already drop out of the running? G-Meister __________________ I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6!

01-20-2008, 05:20 PM	#8
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 9,459 Images: 9	Cyrano, if the South hadn't deserted the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it wouldn't be an anti-gun party today. And as Southerners gradually get fed up with the Republican Party and return, it'll become progressively less anti-gun. __________________ If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. -Anatole France

01-20-2008, 09:41 AM	#2
Windwalker Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 3,585	Guns don't commit crimes, people do. We already have laws against people using guns to commit crimes. We need more enforcement of these laws, not gun bans.

01-20-2008, 05:04 PM	#7
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 2,356	I don't trust *any* of the Democratic Party's candidates, Troy2000. Even the ones who pay lip service to the Second Amendment guaranteeing our individual rights are laboring under their party's ideological opposition to the private citizen's owning firearms. Perhaps I'm being a bit extreme here, but I suspect the Democrats are afraid that one day soon a whole big lot of American gunowners are going to show up in the Capitol Building, weapons in hand, secure all the entrances and TELL the gummint, "We have had enough of your anti-American, anti-Constitutional bull. We have a list here of all the antigunners in the House and the Senate here. The antis have the option of resigning their seats effective immediately and leaving public life forever, or of being shot for the crime of attempting to subvert the Constitution. We don't give a damn which. Your call." Now you and I both know that while this is a charming fantasy, it's not going to happen. We gunowners are much more responsible than that. But the fact remains that gun laws are not aimed at the criminals. They have already indicated they live outside the law. They do not care about the law, and they will get firearms by any means they can think of, up to and including buying them outside the country and smuggling them in. All gun laws are aimed at restricting or impeding the right of honest citizens to keep, bear and use firearms. And it is the Democrats who are pushing these laws, not the Republicans. They are the ones who are afraid of the people they supposedly represent. I can't get behind any of the Democrats. I trust none of them, particularly the front-runners. They are playing the same old "Promise her anything but give her Arpege" game they have always played with regard to gun rights. They'll say whatever they think the public wants to hear to win the election, and then pursue their own evil agendas until it gets near election time again. Trouble is, the only Republican candidate I'd trust not to meddle with our civil rights is Ron Paul, and he's a no-hoper. None of the Republican front-runners has credentials I consider sound as far as our Second Amendment rights go. We all have to fire up our computers and write letters to any candidate that looks like they have a chance. (Don't send emails, by the way. For some reason, politicans pay more attention to snail mail than email, because it implies you are making a greater effort to contact them.) We have to commend any pro-gun actions they have taken (hard as those may be to find), and condemn any anti-gun actions they have taken, citing chapter, line and verse so they can see we are intelligent voters and not cranks. If enough of us do this, it may finally occur to antigun candidates like Obama and Clinton that the American Gunowner is a sleeping giant that they would be very wise not to arouse. They may finally realize that we are already awake, alert and annoyed with them.

01-20-2008, 05:22 PM	#9
Windwalker Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 3,585	Obama maybe, Clinton no. She has her own agenda and will pursue it to the best of her ability. It bodes nothing but ill for gun owners and our 2nd Amendment Rights.