Comments on: Chicago Is The Murder Capital

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:38:04 +0000

This is absolute bunk and runs contrary to every study done on the issue. Don’t listen to what they tell you, read and learn. That is the only way to prevent ignorance of issues.

By: greatone

greatone — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 06:34:15 +0000

gun states like florida have higher muder rates than less gun states like those in the northeast

By: BigPappa

BigPappa — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:58:07 +0000

Well Said!!! It IS amazing how these common sense concepts DO seem to escape the libs. I could go on and on with how much I agree with the but “well said” pretty much sums it up.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:16:15 +0000

The part where he wants to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.

The part where he wants to close down 90% of gun shops in America.

All at the NRA site with cited references…

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:47:33 +0000

Banning certain types of ammo is a far cry from banning all guns. Where are the quotes about Obama wanting to take guns away completely?

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:29:36 +0000

I don’t support the idea that there are limits, not as you define them. I suggest there are limits on certain types of arms and that entities can decide if we are allowed to take them in their buildings.

Personally, I think if police are allowed to take them there then I should be.

But to your question, liberals like Obama want to take guns away completely. They want to ban certain ammunition that hunters use they are not of the idea that we should keep a law abiding citizen from taking a gun into a bar, they are of the mind that law abiding citizens should not have the gun in the first place.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:24:00 +0000

The NRA’s fact list definitely is in line with the opinion that anything other than the right of an individual to carry any type of gun anywhere any time is a “serious threat to Second Amendment liberties.”

I guess my only question is if you support the opinion that there are limits on the 2nd, that there are places it is okay to not allow guns, and that gun legislation does not automatically infringe on the rights of the 2nd, then why is it that Democrats who share this stance with you are considered anti-gun?

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:57:52 +0000

Certainly there are rules regarding carrying guns in schools or government buildings as well as other places. The places involved can prohibit who can carry them there just as you can decide to allow or not them to be carried in your house.

The mentally ill are not capable of making rational decisions with regard to guns (or some are not) though I wonder if it should disqulaify them from voting.

Felons gave up the right by being convicted of the felony.

And I agree that people who sell them commercially (not private sales between citizens) should be qualified. None of this infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It only says that some places guns are not allowed. Like in Texas, the bars have signs saying that guns are not allowed and anyone caught faces a $10,000 fine. The people have not lost the right to carry, they just need to decide if they will drink or be armed…

I recommend you read what the guys who wrote it had to say:
You can find their words here.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:48:57 +0000

More sanity to be injected into the conversation about guns:

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.”

The SCOTUS holds with the opinion of the majority of the sane people of the United States.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 01:01:27 +0000

I actually get mine from the guys who wrote it. It is important to remember that Heller dealt with whether the DC gun ban was Constitutional. It only ruled that a the Second was an Individual right (which any sane person already knew) and that DC could not restrict a person from keeping a fully functional weapon in his home. The ruling had nothing to do with possession outside the home because Heller sued based on having to keep the weapon disassembled and therefore nonfunctional. The ruling discusses ANY weapon whatsoever in any manner and for whatever purpose. This is certainly true in that people are not allowed to carry machine guns (without a permit) or bazookas. The weapons should be for the common defense and this is what the founders expected of us.

You should try reading what the people who wrote the Constitution have to say. They were pretty clear. The Second is not unlimited in that there are weapons that cannot be considered personal use weapons. However, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means just that.

Concealed weapons have held up in that people must have a permit to carry concealed. This is clear but, people should be able to openly carry without any problem. However, it has also been long thought that states should be MUST ISSUE in that they must issue a permit to conceal carry if a person has no record.

Gun laws which restrict people from owning or carrying infringe., Like I said, Heller dealt with a gun IN a residence. We will be seeing lawsuits dealing with the outside in the near future.

The only thing I can say is if guns are outlawed I will become a criminal. I refuse to turn them over.