Are Democrats finally starting to get it...?

[mgeoffriau]

Originally Posted by Mayor Daley

One would require guns in homes with children under 18 to either be disassembled and put in a locked box or outfitted with a trigger lock.

Good luck trying to reassemble the pistol or get that trigger lock off when someone busts through your bedroom door.

Originally Posted by Mayor Daley

Another would limit handgun purchases to one per person per month.

All that will do is restrict law-abiding citizens. Criminals will still get as many as they need through their Cousin Lenny.

Originally Posted by Mayor Daley

The third would ban semi-automatic assault weapons and 50-caliber rifles,

Great. Restrict one class of firearms entirely on appearance, and another that has never been used in a crime to date, unless my info is old.

Originally Posted by Mayor Daley

and Daley adds that he'd also like gun dealers to be licensed by the state of Illinois.

If we could replace the federal licensure with state licensure, I'd be all for it. But supplementing the federal laws with new state legislation is redundant and superfluous.

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by mgeoffriau

Good luck trying to reassemble the pistol or get that trigger lock off when someone busts through your bedroom door.

All that will do is restrict law-abiding citizens. Criminals will still get as many as they need through their Cousin Lenny.

Great. Restrict one class of firearms entirely on appearance, and another that has never been used in a crime to date, unless my info is old.

If we could replace the federal licensure with state licensure, I'd be all for it. But supplementing the federal laws with new state legislation is redundant and superfluous.

It appears the Democrat gun ban law of San Francisco has excited other Democrat/Liberal city officials.

I told ya!


Tom

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by bd

Try to keep it real here Waldo. No one is going to pass out Glocks at airports or anywhere else for that matter.

But say you were able to carry on a plane and some drunk jerk thought you were making eyes at this girlfriend. Are you willing to shoot it out with him on a 747 at 30,000 feet?

Do you think it would be a good idea to sell automatic weapons at Wal Mart to anyone that has enough cash? Do you feel your 2A rights have been restricted because you and the crackhead down the street can't buy machine guns without background checks?

That's kinda where I'm going with this common sense thing.

Some people don't have any. We don't need to let them have guns in order for us to ascertain they are idiots.

Do we?



bd

If everyone who was allowed to have a gun was give one at an airport gate there would not be shootouts at 30,000 feet. Saying there would reminds me when I saw some guy named "Deutch" (or something) giving Ted Nugent an interview, he said "letting people have gun lisences is rediculous, if people could legally carry pistols there would be vigilante muders all across america!"

Thats what the liberals say about every carry permit program around, and it never comes true. Honest people are responsible with their rights, 99.9% of the time only honest people can legally carry guns.

I think background checks are great, I dont have a problem with the current system of background checks and registration. I do have a problem when a city or state that says you cant carry your own weapon in a high crime area.

Criminals know that if they rob someone in DC the victim wont shoot back. If they did, it would just be a criminal shooting a criminal. Trust me, the criminals know.

You should walk where I have walked in DC at night. I cant tell if the cops have followed me because they thought I was buying drugs or because they knew what would happen if they didnt.

[bigun]

I still cant believe that Daley isnt in jail, he's as corrupt as his old man was.

[bd]

Originally Posted by bigun

I still cant believe that Daley isnt in jail, he's as corrupt as his old man was.

At the very least, I agree. I don't see how it got as far as it did.

bd

[Mike TRT]

Please dont get me started on Daly and Chicago BS politics..... this isnt new for chicago, guns have been illegal forever and a day here.

Old man Daly, remember corruption was different in the 60's, he LOVED the police and although he was on the "wrong" side as far as most police are concerned, he really took care of them guys years ago......i was just a kid living on the east coast, but for you older guys, remember the democratic national convention in 68 I think it was......wigs were getting split all over the place here......

he's not in jail yet because the arent done putting a case on him........ the U.S. Attorneys office here is prosecuting A LOT of politicians, present and former at this very time. They are cleaning house here, but it'll take time. There are quite a few corruption trials going on here.....we may even have Jessie Jackass Jr running next time.......oh Lord please help

[sjp2452]

I have no doubt that some democratic politicians sincerely believe in the 2nd as it was intended. The problem, even with pro-gun democrats, is that in electing them to congress (and handing the dems the majority) the majority of the democratic party is going to steer federal policy in the direction that the majority of the party leans. Until there is a paradigm shift across the entire party (and they quit equating hunting with gun rights) it will not serve the gun-owning public's interest to elect democrats to congress. State offices, fine--no problem. But right now we cannot afford a democratic majority in the congress for the sake of federal laws.

Sorry--the party doesn't get it.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Captain Ray

Notice anything wrong here? Hmm.... lets see, the breech is closed, and her finger is on the trigger.. well... that's not good. Thank goodness she knows what's good for "us" though eh?

How can you see whether or not her finger is on the trigger?
If your source of the caption were not <stentorian.com> would you have not skipped criticism of the misuse of "clip" for "magazine" - - your choice of reading material really helps you to be so politically well rounded........ LOL

Originally Posted by Captain Ray

I'm not trying to shape the Democrats platform, they are trying to make people they have some interest in protecting my 2nd ammendment rights. I know they don't mean it.. they no more want me to own a handgun, then they want abortions to be rare!

Raymond

"They don't mean it"? How can you know what they mean and what they don't? This sounds just like XD40Fun. Every time a Democrat (AKA "liberal extremist Bush hater") says something that is not contrary to his own simplistic and predictable beliefs, he tells us it's "fake right, run left". You guys are mind readers? If so, can you prove it? Or will you admit that you are being misleading and presenting your opinions as if they were facts?

I challenge you to point out a single instance of ANY reputable Democrat having ever expressed anything that could possibly be construed to mean they are in favor of more abortions. I challenge you to provide a single instance of ANY Democrat ever expressing anything that could be construed as meaning they want to see abortions become "less rare".

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Come on guys!...Stop pissing on each others Wheaties and stay on topic.

If we allow the Democrats to frame this as a "hunting" issue...we lose.
We must force them to discuss a constitutional right...not a recreational activity that less than 25% of the gun-owning public participate in.

What's the sense of using statistics? They can always be countered with more statistics.

Really....so what if less than 25% of gun owners hunt? What is the percentage of gun owners that have used a gun in self defense? How do you express what is essentially zero percent as a number?

I don't agree with the Democrats using hunting as an excuse for allowing guns. Hell what percentage of hunters hunt with handguns? I just don't see the big deal. Let them use whatever rhetoric they want. Anything that softens the resolve of the anti-gunners is better than nothing IMO.

While it's true that the majority of anti-gunners in government are Democrats, it is NOT true that the majority of Democrats are anti-gun. Just because this is the image painted by some doesn't make it so. As far as I am concerned it's just another instance of the Republican strategists telling the public what the Democrats stand for.

It is a strategy that works. Look at how Karl Rove was able to make gay marriage the deciding issue of the last Presidential election. Not only did Kerry state he was personally opposed to gay marriage during one of the debates, but it's not the kind of an issue any President can change the law about. But the strategy worked. Boys kissing boys became more important to the voters that made the difference, than national security during the final hours of the campaign. Now of course it is a non-issues just as it always was in reality.

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

Either the politicians that bring up hunting are ignorant, themselves about the intentions of our founders or they are hoping their constituents are ignorant on the issue. Either way, the true meaning of the Second Ammendment is not being discussed by the Democrats in that article...sorry.

- Brickboy240

OK...serious questions Brickboy. What WERE the intentions of our founders? What IS the true meaning of the Second Amendment?

These are not trick questions. And PLEASE don't assume that I think I have the answers. I don't. If I did, I would gladly share them rather than ask for them.

Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by sjp2452

I have no doubt that some democratic politicians sincerely believe in the 2nd as it was intended.

I guess if Brickboy can't answer, then he has a relief pitcher in the bull-pen. You too know what was "intended" by people so long dead?

Fred (Sweden),
D.

[Frenchy]

Delija;

A reading of the Federalist Papers should give you a clue to the intent. The research material is all over the "Net" for those that are really interested.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Delija;

A reading of the Federalist Papers should give you a clue to the intent. The research material is all over the "Net" for those that are really interested.

OK, thanks...I'll definitely check that out.

I'm actually sitting in the airport now ..(Verizon's wireless internet service is really cool! ...and brand new to me).

About to board, but I'll have two layovers today so that should be some interesting reading.

Peace,
D.