Obama and gun control

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:How is that different than banning guns? He gets to "keep his promise" by not flat out banning guns, but makes it expensive for owners to use them.

It's different in the same way that government (us) has a legitimate interest in controlling/regulating any dangerous device that can easily kill us. There are federal regulations on everything from barbecue propane tanks to little mattress tags, & every state has strict rules & regs on automobile/truck safety equipment. Firearms ARE inherently dangerous & very often used in crime. The NRA can scream it's head off, but facts are facts!
As far as these regulations costing us money.......Of course they do! (Your car won't pass your state's inspection requirement if your turn signals aren't working right?....Who pays to fix those?)
My bottom line is: any REASONABLE regulation that make it easier for law enforcement to find & arrest a gun using criminal makes us all safer, for a small cost.

What is "Reasonable" will always require debate & compromise in our state & federal legislatures.

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:But you don't have a Constitutional right to "Keep and drive cars"

You also don't have a Constitutional right to own a 20lb propane barbecue propane tank, a HAM radio or any of a number of things that the federal government regulates daily, but was invented long after our Constitution was written. Any society needs to set down rules for safely living together...That's just common sense.
You cant logically argue that....... if a potentially dangerous device,(not specifically mentioned in a document written over 200 years ago) is invented & involved in many killings, that we can't collectively decide to regulate it's use ever into the future...can you?

AND......the 1803 Supreme Court ruling in Marbury vs Madison gives us the right to interpret the Constitution as things change down through the years.

Edit: My above point was not stated very well, but what I meant to say was that many of the firearms law changes relate to things not invented back at our country's founding (ie the ability to identify bullet casings, etc) but that their Constitutionality cannot be based on whether or not they were specifically mentioned in the document itself. The Constitution is a living set of rules/concepts that must be continually interpreted to remain effective.

ray in ma wrote:Wow some heavy political banter here.

As a kid I did a lot of hunting with my friends (used to take the first day of bird hunting off from school with dad's blessing) All of my brother in-laws are hunters (some better than others but venison is venison).

What I don't get about the whole debate and perhaps someone can enlighten me. I have no problem with people owning firearms. I believe the gist of the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms for all lawful purposes.

So why to the people most afraid of this claim they need AK47's or 30 round clips? are you that bad a shot it takes 30 tries to bring it down? When I was learning I got 2 bullets and never carried more than a double barreled shotgun (in MA you can not use rifles for hunting but you can have a rifled black powder firearms)

What is the lawful purpose of owning an assault rifle? I can see law enforcement and military having access to these weapons but why would a normal everyday person ever need something like this?

Please I'm just trying to understand the debate on that part of the issue. You see on the news about the criminals that have high powered assault weapons and armor piercing bullets and vests better than any police department can afford but these are criminals doing crime.....

Declaration of Independence wrote:When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. .............But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security

Devil505 wrote:

LsFarm wrote:Still want 'gun control' ??

Of course I do, just as I want it mandatory that the guy driving towards me, (at 80 mph in his SUV) has brakes that work!

I don't want to take his SUV away.........I just want it to be as safe as we (society) can make it.
In the same way, Obama is NOT trying to take our guns away....He is simply trying to increase our collective saftey by making it easier for law enforcement to identify, prosecute & get dangerous guns users off the streets.

I am a long time gun owner & see no problem with these reasonable regulations, even if they cost me a few more dollars.