Talk about poor timing………….

Those dam Supreme Court guys who sat in the front row, shaking their heads during State of Union Address now are holding a big club.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/02/ken-klukowski-obama-chicago-gun-ban-supreme-court-hiding-desk/

1.You do realize that was an opinion article right Belly?

2.It's from Fox...what do you expect them to say Belly?

gibby08 wrote: 1.You do realize that was an opinion article right Belly?

2.It's from Fox...what do you expect them to say Belly?

For your reading enjoyment
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/01/supreme.court.gun.control/index.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/chicagos_handgun_ban_and_rico.html


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/02/supremecourt/main6259211.shtml

http://www.collegian.com/index.php/article/2010/03/supreme_court_faces_another_landmark_case_with_gun_control

How about a comment on the article and what in your opinion it has on Obama future political views of anti-gun agenda.

Hey! I know I'm a popular topic on the FH but it's not always about Belly

I don't get for it for several reasons.
1. The President is not pushing an anti-gun agenda. He is simply not pressing any gun agenda.
2. We already know his view on gun control, but he has yet to really push a policy on it.
3. Why should the President of the U.S come out with an opinion before the Supreme Court rules? Usually, Presidents give their opinion after a verdict.
4. Even if the President did come out one way or another, the same author and same crowd would be blasting him for the opinion. So, why make it?
5. Yes, the President should be firm on an opinion, but does not mean he has to give an opinion or view on every single issue. Why should the President speak out about this now? Shouldn't he wait till after the ruling. (I guess this goes with 3).
6. Belly: Are you saying that SCOTUS should act with a political club to get back at Obama instead of the letter of the law? I'm confused.

Belly is confused. See, he thinks that if it is anti-Obama then it is A: True and B: An absolute outrage that any communist scum would think otherwise.

Your guns aren't going to be taken away. Thankfully there isn't much support at all in the US for policies like the UK has.

What is it with people and that paranoia that the government is going to "take away my guns?"

I am a gun owner, and I have never felt like my right to own a gun has been threatened, not do I feel that way today. It's just another wedge issue, IMO.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: What is it with people and that paranoia that the government is going to "take away my guns?"

I am a gun owner, and I have never felt like my right to own a gun has been threatened, not do I feel that way today. It's just another wedge issue, IMO.

Because the government wants to take away your guns. It is the natural progression of government to remove power from the people and give it to itself. Governments throughout history has disarmed their populace. No reason to think this one doesn't want to do the same.


This case is scary for gun owners though. I have a feeling the Supreme Court is going to rule that their judgment only applies to federal laws and states have a right to enact restrictions on guns. This would be a huge setback.

eersandbeers wrote: This case is scary for gun owners though. I have a feeling the Supreme Court is going to rule that their judgment only applies to federal laws and states have a right to enact restrictions on guns. This would be a huge setback.

A setback for federal power.

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: This case is scary for gun owners though. I have a feeling the Supreme Court is going to rule that their judgment only applies to federal laws and states have a right to enact restrictions on guns. This would be a huge setback.

A setback for federal power.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate guns in the first place.

It won't matter though. All they will do is bribe states and localities with money to enact certain gun restrictions. Much like they do with everything else.

eersandbeers wrote: The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate guns in the first place.

I agree. But what about the states and localities.

eersandbeers wrote: It won't matter though. All they will do is bribe states and localities with money to enact certain gun restrictions. Much like they do with everything else.

Again I agree. That is why federal power needs to be set back a notch on this one.

Sorry guys...I just can't get on board with the idea that one of these days, a representative of the federal government will be knocking on my door and demanding that I turn over my firearms.

Belly35 wrote: Talk about poor timing………….

Those dam Supreme Court guys who sat in the front row, shaking their heads during State of Union Address now are holding a big club.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/02/ken-klukowski-obama-chicago-gun-ban-supreme-court-hiding-desk/

This article is one large non-sequitur. The SCOTUS is going to make a ruling not the President. So in other words it is good and refreshing that the President is not saying anything.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Sorry guys...I just can't get on board with the idea that one of these days, a representative of the federal government will be knocking on my door and demanding that I turn over my firearms.

If they do I suggest shooting them between the eyes.

Obama what your views on Gun Control? -

Belly35 what your views on grammar or the english language?

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Sorry guys...I just can't get on board with the idea that one of these days, a representative of the federal government will be knocking on my door and demanding that I turn over my firearms.

Don't worry our founders got on board for you, that is why they gave us the 2nd amendment.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Sorry guys...I just can't get on board with the idea that one of these days, a representative of the federal government will be knocking on my door and demanding that I turn over my firearms.

You'll change your tune when they land that black helicopter in your yard.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Sorry guys...I just can't get on board with the idea that one of these days, a representative of the federal government will be knocking on my door and demanding that I turn over my firearms.

You'll change your tune when they land that black helicopter in your yard.

Seriously?

cbus4life wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Sorry guys...I just can't get on board with the idea that one of these days, a representative of the federal government will be knocking on my door and demanding that I turn over my firearms.

You'll change your tune when they land that black helicopter in your yard.

Seriously?

Not so much, no.

Haha.

I am a gunowner and I don't fear that the government is going to be taking my guns.

majorspark wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Sorry guys...I just can't get on board with the idea that one of these days, a representative of the federal government will be knocking on my door and demanding that I turn over my firearms.

Don't worry our founders got on board for you, that is why they gave us the 2nd amendment.

Which is exactly why I'm not afraid of getting my guns taken away. The 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere, no matter how much some people think it is.

Belly35 wrote:http://www.collegian.com/index.php/article/2010/03/supreme_court_faces_another_landmark_case_with_gun_control

Seriously? An opinion piece from the Colorado State student newspaper?

Had this sent to me today, thought I'd share

dwccrew wrote: I am a gunowner and I don't fear that the government is going to be taking my guns.

Yes but the buzz from the right wing whack jobs has been very good for the gun and amino manufacturing companys. I only wish I would have bought their stocks after the election.