Gun control discussion

[RICHARD]

I love the fact that the media made light of the comments by the prez at some get-together last night....

He was talking about assault rifles and said something like "AK-47s should stay in the hands of soldiers".

LOLOLOLOL, "AKs" are what many third world soldiers, dirtbag drugrunners and despots carry. Nothing like getting your facts straight.

[lizbud]

I love the fact that the media made light of the comments by the prez at some get-together last night....

He was talking about assault rifles and said something like "AK-47s should stay in the hands of soldiers".

LOLOLOLOL, "AKs" are what many third world soldiers, dirtbag drugrunners and despots carry. Nothing like getting your facts straight.

The subject under discussion is gun control. Why not stay on topic & resist your little lame digs on the POTUS.

[RICHARD]

The subject under discussion is gun control. Why not stay on topic & resist your little lame digs on the POTUS.

Yes, the subject is gun control.

So when some one comments on gun control and makes a gaffe like that?

I wonder about the person making the comment and the people who let it slide.

It's not a lame little dig - It's a huge dig and I reserve the right to call him out on it.

If the POTUS doesn't even know what kind of weapons the US service people use, doesn't that make you wonder just how involved he is with the people serving under him?

----------------------------

Isn't that the same dude running about with the codes for some hydrogen bombs?

Or is it that death ray thing that Ronald Raygun promised us?

[catlady1945]

Wow, gotta say I am shocked at the pro-gun comments! And from Pet lovers!

[Lady's Human]

Wow, gotta say I am shocked at the pro-gun comments! And from Pet lovers!

What does one's ownership of pets have to do with whether you're for individual rights or not?

[Alysser]

What does one's ownership of pets have to do with whether you're for individual rights or not?

My thoughts exactly.

[catlady1945]

Food for thought:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay...b_1759542.html

[Edwina's Secretary]

What does one's ownership of pets have to do with whether you're for individual rights or not?

I know the answer to this quiz! Ownership of pets has the same thing to do with gun ownership that gun ownership has to do with individual rights... nothing.

Because I cannot own an atomic bomb my individual rights are not compromised in any way...

[Lady's Human]

I know the answer to this quiz! Ownership of pets has the same thing to do with gun ownership that gun ownership has to do with individual rights... nothing.

Because I cannot own an atomic bomb my individual rights are not compromised in any way...

Nice strawman.

The right to keep and bear arms (legally restricted to small arms) is guaranteed by the Constitution. This has been affirmed by the SCOTUS. It doesn't matter how many restrictions you put on legal ownership of firearms, criminals will still get their hands on them.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Then perhaps it is time to change the constitution.

It was written in a time when "arms" meant something very different than it does today -- by men who thought owning slaves was unpleasant but legal and that only rich white men should be allowed to vote (sounds like the Republican Party today!) Folks who channel the founding fathers - a game I think best left to oujia boards and parlor games - are always saying what they would have wanted. There is simply no way they could have imagined the world as it is today. The best line I have read about this is that what the founding fathers would have wanted was running water.

So many of the guns criminals get their hands on are stolen from homes..."protected by Smith and Wesson." That gun on your dresser? Burglars like cash, jewelry and guns. So while you're out walking the door what is to stop those crackheads from breaking in and taking that very convenient gun?

As for the Supreme Court affirming the right to own guns...what about ...

Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The court agreed unanimously.

Here's the thing. Things change. I would hope, as a country, we would be intelligent enough to recognize when it is time to change.

[chocolatepuppy]

Wow, gotta say I am shocked at the pro-gun comments! And from Pet lovers!

'IF' someone comes through my back door at night, the dogs most likely will not stop them, if their barking didn't scare them off in the first place. So then I could stand there and scream as they shoot or beat my dogs to death right in front of me. Then, they'll do whatever they want with me. The cats, most likely would hide and be spared.

Please spare me any comments that I'm a drama queen. I don't sit up nights worrying about this(because I have a loaded gun on my dresser) but it does happen! I'm 99% sure a criminal would pass my house when L&J start carrying on. But that 1%, can we say crackhead, will still try to get in. And yes, we do have many crackheads on the loose in my quiet little town.

[Lady's Human]

He was talking about assault rifles and said something like "AK-47s should stay in the hands of soldiers".

LOLOLOLOL, "AKs" are what many third world soldiers, dirtbag drugrunners and despots carry. Nothing like getting your facts straight.

As well as US Soldiers in Iraq, and many of our allies in the post Warsaw pact NATO alliance. Clint's line from Heartbreak Ridge no longer holds true.