Let us review:
Fairness Doctrine takes away the First Amemdment.
Then this quote.
I think its best for the goverment and us if its done legally by the way of LTC and permits.
Then the Second.
r8
Guns and Obama
- Thread starter manny08busa
- Start date
Let us review:
Fairness Doctrine takes away the First Amemdment.
Then this quote.
I think its best for the goverment and us if its done legally by the way of LTC and permits.
Then the Second.
r8
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has expressed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine; an aide to Senator Obama described the debate surrounding it as "a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," and cited Obama's support for other proposals such as media-ownership caps and network neutrality. [22]
Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine - 6/25/2008 6:25:00 PM - Broadcasting & Cable
This is an election year. Do you think for one minute he would say anything now?
You really do live under a rock.
r8
You could say the same thing about the NRA or any of your other citations that don't give all the facts....At least by having him as a primary source you have the means to hold him accountable.
teamorion22
Registered
Irresponsible gun ownership is a problem.
Joe citizen is not going to go buy illegal guns.
After the results of the recent supreme court case heller v district of Columbia every state's gun law can easily be ruled unconstitutional. So again, conservative supreme court judges would have 2 die or retire and Senator Obama would have to appoint liberal judges in their place, and then a case would have to be presented to the supreme court regarding gun control and then the judges would have to agree to hear this case and then we'll see what happens but all of this will take YEARS if it happens at all.
I do not own a gun nor have I ever wish I had. I try real hard not to buy the fear the media and govt sells
Joe citizen is not going to go buy illegal guns.
After the results of the recent supreme court case heller v district of Columbia every state's gun law can easily be ruled unconstitutional. So again, conservative supreme court judges would have 2 die or retire and Senator Obama would have to appoint liberal judges in their place, and then a case would have to be presented to the supreme court regarding gun control and then the judges would have to agree to hear this case and then we'll see what happens but all of this will take YEARS if it happens at all.
I do not own a gun nor have I ever wish I had. I try real hard not to buy the fear the media and govt sells
yes legislation is filled with crap and the bail out bill is a great example. But Obama still voted for it, as well as McCain and Biden. Seems your argument about gun legislation having other things added just doesn't hold much water here when trying to make Obama out as someone who doesn't want to take our guns away!
<---You can't really say for sure without the legislation
No I am not saying anything about his position one way or the other. The use of the bail out bill was an example of legislation that was filled with pork. You can probably cite examples for both candidates where they elecetd not to vote for a bill because of Pork. All I am saying is that I will not judge either candidate based upon their vote unless I see the specifics of the bill that is in question. Frankly some of the things said in Rune's links seem without credit and you can't determine one way or the other without being able to look at the legislation.
Question here is Obama's views on guns. Good luck trying to convince anyone that Obama isn't antigun.
All legislation has pork written into it and everytime the conservatives try to get a line item bill passed to deal with this very issue the dems shoot it down. Wonder why that would be???
All legislation has pork written into it and everytime the conservatives try to get a line item bill passed to deal with this very issue the dems shoot it down. Wonder why that would be???
I did that with the offshore drilling bill.
I thought 100 miles was good even though the oil sits at 50 miles. Why give coastal states any revenue?
I don't want to look at drilling platforms anyway and I can afford gas.
Nancy Pelosi
Crude is more easily recoverable within the 25 mile zone, and you're not likely to see rigs at that distance from shore. What's wrong with the states sharing in the revenue like Alaska? That money would benefit the citizens. I wouldn't mind the chance of having oil dividend checks mailed to my home.
As teamorion22 said, the US Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession in the home, and the requirement that firearms in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Essentially, this sends a message to other states that similar bans will also be struck down as unconstitutional. Justice SCALIA wrote the Opinion, and Chief Justice ROBERTS, and Justices KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, joined in the Opinion. Justices STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER dissented (that is, disagreed).
Senators and Representatives (state or national) can vote for and against all the laws they want, but if they pass a law that's unconstitutional (as decided by the courts), then the law goes ... well ... "bye-bye."
You can read the Opinion here; note that the "Syllabus" is not the Opinion of the Court, but a synopsis prepared by the reporter:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Here's part of the Syllabus:
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused.
He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing
requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
Held:
1. 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. ...
* * *
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. ...
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. ....
Senators and Representatives (state or national) can vote for and against all the laws they want, but if they pass a law that's unconstitutional (as decided by the courts), then the law goes ... well ... "bye-bye."
You can read the Opinion here; note that the "Syllabus" is not the Opinion of the Court, but a synopsis prepared by the reporter:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Here's part of the Syllabus:
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused.
He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing
requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
Held:
1. 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. ...
* * *
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. ...
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. ....
Last edited:
Well in all this debate I felt the need to purchase a new Glock. New Glock 17 will be on the way, should have it before election day 
Will be placing an order tomorrow to stock up on HiCap mags for it (only comes with 3) as well as my other Glocks. Get'em while they are still cheap and available!
Will be placing an order tomorrow to stock up on HiCap mags for it (only comes with 3) as well as my other Glocks. Get'em while they are still cheap and available!
Man stop stirring the pot on this shid as if when Obama gets elected next Tuesday all gun shops will mysteriously disappear on Wednesday.
I like my guns and I am keeping them too. Yeah, I voted for Obama, but his black/white azz had better think twice about coming to the southside to take my weapons!!
Seriously, though I bought several guns during the Clinton years and yes it sucked trying to find and then having to pay for pre-ban hi-cap mags. ButI could still buy guns. I can still carry concealed. Bottom line is all of the exsiting legislature will not be reversed overnight in some back room conspiracy.
Shid, if you can't have guns in Illinois and you're pissed about it, MOVE TO TEXAS, we got plenty of guns, and we'll even let you carry a few of them around with you!!
I am so tired of "Obama is gonna raise your taxes & take your guns". BULLSHI_T
That mentality right now has every azz hat with enough arms at home to stock a small militia running to the store right now and buying up all the dayum bullets. Hell, I need to go right now myself and get few boxes, you know just in case I need them next Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning !!
And CTA, whey are you helping incite this shid, you're in law enforcement, you can get what you want, better shid than I can get, and at a discount even. You have nothing to worry about, except for the fact that you live in Illinois!!
I like my guns and I am keeping them too. Yeah, I voted for Obama, but his black/white azz had better think twice about coming to the southside to take my weapons!!
Seriously, though I bought several guns during the Clinton years and yes it sucked trying to find and then having to pay for pre-ban hi-cap mags. ButI could still buy guns. I can still carry concealed. Bottom line is all of the exsiting legislature will not be reversed overnight in some back room conspiracy.
Shid, if you can't have guns in Illinois and you're pissed about it, MOVE TO TEXAS, we got plenty of guns, and we'll even let you carry a few of them around with you!!
I am so tired of "Obama is gonna raise your taxes & take your guns". BULLSHI_T
That mentality right now has every azz hat with enough arms at home to stock a small militia running to the store right now and buying up all the dayum bullets. Hell, I need to go right now myself and get few boxes, you know just in case I need them next Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning !!
And CTA, whey are you helping incite this shid, you're in law enforcement, you can get what you want, better shid than I can get, and at a discount even. You have nothing to worry about, except for the fact that you live in Illinois!!
motogp08
Registered
Well in all this debate I felt the need to purchase a new Glock. New Glock 17 will be on the way, should have it before election day
Will be placing an order tomorrow to stock up on HiCap mags for it (only comes with 3) as well as my other Glocks. Get'em while they are still cheap and available!
Cool, pick up one for me too!
motogp08
Registered
Well, if you think back to the Katrina crisis in Louisiana, they had Tactical Teams that raided the homes because they were taking away the guns.
Just how do you suppose you're gonna stop them if they come knockin' for your guns with a tactical team? You could put up a fight, but they'll have you in handcuffs and your guns in about 10min. or less. :sarcasm:
Thats why a lot of us are voting McCain...so we don't have to worry about getting our guns taken away in the FIRST PLACE.
Haya01B
Registered
Let me help calm your nerves people about the gun control. You are probably in fear of being victem of what has happen in other countries where guns have been banned from the public. These countries did not have the 2nd amendment like this one does. I love my ak-47, glock(s), shotgun, and WWII rifle as much as the next gun owner. I am in no way afraid of losing them to a ban of some sort. RELAX!
Last edited:
It is this kind of attitude that will allow it to happen. First thing to consider is you have an increasing number of people in this country that are oblivious to the facts about guns and do not own guns. The liberals constantly preach how bad guns are and that they need bans on certain guns in order to keep the people safe. Then you have a portion of the gun owners who have the attitude, just like yours, that nobody will ever come knock on their door and take their guns. Then you have the rest of us who know the score.
Now go back eight years and imagine that Al Gore had gotten elected or even just four years and imagine that John Kerry had been elected. Bush has put two justices on the court since 2005. John Glover Roberts, Jr. in Sept 2005 and Samuel Anthony Alito in Jan 2006. Roberts replaced Rehnquist and Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, both that were replaced were more conservative than not. Roberts and Alito are both conservative. Imagine for a second if they had been replaced with someone more liberal by John Kerry.
District of Columbia V. Heller would have had a much different opinion. The gun owners of this country only received a favorable ruling by one vote. On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law.
One more liberal, gun hating justice would have gave this case a completely different ruling in my opinion. A ruling which would have upheld the Washington D.C. gun law and opened the door nationwide for such gun laws. Had the court ruled that the second amendment ONLY applied to militia, as many liberals believe, we individuals could lose our right to bear arms. Sure the 2nd ammendment would still be there, it just would not pertain to us.
Some call this instilling fear, I call it telling the truth and understanding the facts.
Southside Playa, in response to your comment
yes I am in law enforcement and yes I have access to many neat things at sometimes discounted prices. This does not mean that I support the government taking away guns. If it were up to me the state of IL would have a concealed carry law. Citizens should be allowed to protect themselves and should not have to rely upon law enforcement should someone come knock their door down. God knows more times than not it takes police too long to get there when needed, especially when it is a matter of life and death. With that said, I will not turn my back on the public just because I can get what I want. I will not sell out my fellow american's right to own a gun period.
I also remember back in the Clinton days, the assault weapons ban. That law did NOTHING to take guns off the streets. There was no provision in that law to seize the first assault weapon, it merely stated they could no longer be sold. All it did was put a premium price on those already in gun owners hands. It also did not change the way I did my job.
Links to some things quoted above.
list of US Supreme Court Justices List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
District of Columbia V. Heller District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Courts opinion in DC v. Heller http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/Heller7-290.pdf
Similar threads
