ExRx.net

"If other law abiding citizens want to buy a firearm, then its fully within their rights. However, being put through a screening process is a small sacrifice to make to prevent those who either do not have the right or who have thrown away the right to own a firearm from getting one." - TheHeb

FBI background checks are already required for most firearms transfers including those made at gun shows. I'd have no problem with extending this requirement to all transfers, since it doesn't infringe on the ability of law abiding adult to aquire firearms.

We already have tens of thousands of gun laws in the US at the federal, state and local level. The firearms industry is heavily regulated. Dealers can lose their licences on mere suspicion of illegal activity.

I'm not opposed to ALL gun control. I am opposed to any new ban or regulation that threatens my rights or the rights of other law abiding citizens.

I also have a problem with guns laws that are deliberately deceptive. For example, the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban was actually a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. Likewise, Ted Kenedy's proposed Armor-Peircing Ammunition Ban was actually a ban on conventional centerfire rifle ammo.

Then you should be more afraid of republicans. Since the takeover of the right wing and religious right, they want to take away more rights, and they have already taken some away. That is my problem with them. I vote 100% on civil liberties.

By the way, full-auto rifles, machine guns and submachine guns have been effectively banned since the Great Depression (along with short-barreled rifles and shotguns). In order to aquire one, one must get a special licence which is both expensive and difficult to aquire and register it (also expensive). Meanwhile, legal full-autos are both rare and expensive. Most of the people who own them are hardcore collectors.

"Then you should be more afraid of republicans. Since the takeover of the right wing and religious right, they want to take away more rights, and they have already taken some away. That is my problem with them. I vote 100% on civil liberties." - Ironman

I would be if they controled the white house and both houses of congress as the democrats do now.

Wrong on all counts. The supreme court can only strike down legislation as unconstitutional. They CAN'T amend the constitution. The second problem is 2 liberal justices will be replaced with 2 more liberal justices. So there will be no change. You are also forgetting you need conservative Democrats and a republican or 2 to break a philibuster.

I see so you're 50/50 gridlock rather than republican?

I can understand that, but we still need to undo the damage of the last 8 years.Especially 2006 and before when republicans had a total monopoly of power.

Myself, and I think the majority of Americans, like gun laws as they are. I really hate all the fear mongering on the part of politicians and the media.

Wrong. It was to protect us the MAJORITY from the gov't and again there has not been a proposed 28th amendment banning all guns. I think you need to take a crash course on the US gov't. Even if this were true? Who were the ones that got a Black man elected into the highest office? The liberal Judges?

What are you talking about? That example was hypothetical situation which won't ever happen.

That was when he was a senator. Like I've stated before, he is going to be left but moderate. Have you been reading up on who he is surrounding himself with? A mix of Dem, Rep, and Inde. If he wants to stay in power 2 full terms then he won't try to alienate specific groups of people.

Why does that suprise you? Like I already stated, liberals will never expand gun rights. At the same time not all liberals are trying to ban guns. There are extremes in which politicians lie in, most tend to sit right around the middle and then there a few here and there who are hardcore in their beliefs.

Why are you bringing up those judges again? The court at this time is balanced and in the best interest of everyone including the president himself he will keep it that way. If one conservative and liberal die, he will replace them with a liberal and a conservative.

"Wrong. It was to protect us the MAJORITY from the gov't and again there has not been a proposed 28th amendment banning all guns. I think you need to take a crash course on the US gov't. Even if this were true? Who were the ones that got a Black man elected into the highest office? The liberal Judges?" - Ironmaided

I don't know how many more ways I can explain this. The Supreme Court enterprets the constitution. If the Supreme Court says there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, then there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. And if there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, then congress doesn't need a new Amendment to ban some, most or all guns.

Also, the Anti-federalists wrote fairly extensively about the threat posed by the a tyrany of the majority. Look it up.

Finally, the Supreme Court didn't elect Obama. American voters did.

"That was when he was a senator. Like I've stated before, he is going to be left but moderate." - Ironmaiden

So he was liberal as a senator, but now he'll be moderate as a president? Do you think he's going to change his political stance just because he has a new job?

"Why are you bringing up those judges again? The court at this time is balanced and in the best interest of everyone including the president himself he will keep it that way. If one conservative and liberal die, he will replace them with a liberal and a conservative." - Ironmaiden

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a president must replace a conservative judge with a conservative or a liberal with a liberal. The only check is that congress most confirm whoever the president nominates, and at the moment the Democrats control both houses.

"I see so you're 50/50 gridlock rather than republican?" - Ironman

Yes. I never said I was a republican. I'm not a member of any political party.

Yes they control both houses and so what? So your back to assuming that they would do that. You are completely disreguarding the fact that it is in nobodies best interest to do that. Democrats would lose all their gained power by 2010 if they decided to abuse their power. You seem to believe that the democrats are power hungry ratts that want to take away all rights and make the US one large prison.

Again completly ignoring the fact that he it setting up a administration full of people from the major parties. So yes I truely believe he will be left but moderate.

Explain to me how the supreme court could possibly interpret the second amendment as saying that no person can own a gun? 2nd Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Also the supreme court cannot just pull this topic out of their ass and legislate it, it has to be presented to them as a court case or created by the legislature. Like I said before their would not be nearly enough support for this bill by senate and the house. All of congress's democrats would have to be hardcore liberals for even a flicker of hope of the bill being created. Then we are on to interpretation, how can the court clearly justify that it doesn't go against the constitution?

Antifederalists have been gone for 200+ years and what they wanted was their rights guaranteed on paper. Guess what, they got them.