Recommended Tests

While it is pretty well known that I am not super fond of hand guns, and especially automatic or assault weapons. I believe we all have the right to weapons. I love shotguns, and rifles. Obama as usual is a nut case. 

Good Gosh Obama is a dipS#!t... Damn.

IDK about that. I think bunnies and guys do mix.



If I was the NRA I would run the ads anyway. There is nothing he can do about it, he has no legal right to do anything to them over it. He is just scared that someone is not kissing his ass like other media outlets are.

Nope, it still shocks me at times though..for both sides of the coin.

I thought I posted this the other day but I couldn't find it .I don't think it's the NRA add but could be.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifEg1aq6Emo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/ifEg1aq6Emo</a>

For some reason they load slow.
These are the NRA ads Obama doesn't like:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/xzr_nlTi7-8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/xzr_nlTi7-8</a>

You have to copy & paste this one:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hvHzgUhpCE]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/76aW2LuQKe8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/76aW2LuQKe8</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/58Z9p3CR-ys" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/58Z9p3CR-ys</a>

Then go to the site gunbanobama.com that's at the end of the video & check out some of the articles.

Yep, he is headed down a one way street alright. And too bad if he does not like those ads, he should have the guts to stand on what he believes. And why politicians never show their views anymore. They might not get elected. 

Shug7272 ;You're probably correct about the voting but I'm still going to vote.That will be for McCain because I consider him the lesser of two bad choices.We all know an Independent doesn't have a chance.At least not in this election.If one was running close to the Rep & Dem then I would probably vote for the Independent.
He would have to be wearing a Hitler costume & sombrero for me not to.
Of course I support the Second Amendment.I even take it a step further I believe all adult citizens should own or have access to at least one gun & keep at least a box of ammunition.I believe Americans are born into the militia & should be ready at anytime if called to defend the USA.Either by the government or circumstances(like invasion).
 Or even a revolution to get the government back in control of the people.
The latter is what we need but right now I don't know of a group that has any chance of even starting a revolution.
I don't have a concealed carry permit because I believe the only permit really needed is the second amendment.
The CCP is just one more fee illegally imposed by government.
If I had the funds I would strap on my six gun & go where I was sure to be arrested .Then fight it to the Supreme Court  using only the second amendment as the defense.
 You see I believe all citizens without a criminal record should be allowed to carry a gun anywhere ,anytime, anyplace until they prove the can't handle doing that .The proof would be the use of the gun to commit a crime.
Personally I think even criminals that didn't use a weapon in the crime they committed & that have served their sentence should also be allowed this right again.
You see I'm not afraid of allowing an accountant that embezzled some money to be armed.
Probably the ex-con that was guilty of armed robbery is going to be armed if he decides to commit the crime again anyway.
Maybe that accountant will shoot him & save my life.

I think the better way would be to educate the people in firearm safety and proper use before allowing them to carry one on the streets. We don't give our teenagers a car and wait for them to wreck it before we teach them how to drive, do we? 

Well it seems like some people to do that. 

I'm not opposed to firearm training as long as the government doesn't make it a requirement.
The writers of the second amendment assumed people would be trained as they were raised.
I don't even remember exactly when my training started but somewhere around 5 or 6 years old.
I remember at 6 when I was in the country visiting a cousin that lived out in the country we were allowed to go out unsupervised & hunt rabbits.We never got into any trouble,neither of us got shot by the other,we knew not to shoot anything we weren't supposed to or the privelege would be stopped.
btw we did bring home rabbits which we helped clean.

I'm aware of the government requirement for CCW .I see the need for those that aren't trained .I feel I've already been trained & further the second amendment has no training requirement.I think I have been like the minutemen were already trained .So I say training should be the option for those that feel they need it.
 On the CCW a lot of that is to train those that get the permit where they are allowed to carry & where they are not.
As far as I'm concerned this is illegal restriction of the second amendment even to require a CCW permit.
The permit all Americans have is the second amendment there is no need for a further one.
My answer is no it shouldn't be required & if a citizen makes the choice to carry a firearm & stupidly kills someone then that citizen should be criminally prosecuted .
But no worse than a cop would.

mudmanc4 ;There is no provision in the 2nd for screening so for the most part no need.A saleperson should be trained to recognize a mentally handicapped person.The felon is going to get a weapon somewhere if they want one regardless of the law.So the screening is usually only a problem for the law abiding citizen.
 I refuse to get a CCW but my brother did get his.His instructor spent considerable time on where a weapon could be legally carried.You know what type sign had to be displayed by a business to not allow CCW.Things like a person with a CCW can legally park in a school parking lot with the weapon but has to leave it locked in the vehicle if going on the other school grounds or buildings.On requirements when stopped by a law officer.On states with reciprocal agreements.I guess this instructor just didn't want his students arrested.
There was a field test & I guess a major background check because it was about 6 weeks before he got the permit after the course & had paid for it..
The laws above would be Texas law but may be the same in other states.

I think it's interesting that the 'fact check' link you posted was from the NRA. Try this one for a more objective view:
Fact Check

Feel free to go to their main page. I think it's plain to see that they are not biased, however I encourage you to judge for yourself.

I believe in the constitution and all it's current amendments. Especially the fourth, which has been violated by the government consistently, and most recently egregiously. However, I think it's ludicrous to think that there could be any violent overthrow of the US government without the support of the military (essentially a coup at that point). It's interesting how many people ignore the words "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment.

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms to a point (again, those pesky words 'well regulated'). I believe that recently convicted felons SHOULD lose their rights as a US citizen... to a point. I DON'T, however believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own ANY type of weapon, or to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. I think assault weapons, armor-piercing bullets, and concealed weapons regulations fall directly into the purview of the words 'well regulated militia'.

Even in 'the old west', it was common for citizens to be deprived of their guns while they were in town. This is all a matter of common sense.

Flame on.           

Surely not. 

Surely not    Explode is fun.  But roll back to zero???? 

Oh,Tommie would know if Jabberwock is male or female..He does his homework..I think he still keeps a black book..and Water and I are on his top list...LOL>>>>Where is Water anyways??


Jabberwock is from Alice in Wonderland. Jabberwocky. Inless there's another one.

In regards to the second amendment, I believe the first part of the sentence clearly provides context. They are saying that because a well regulated militia is required, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (also possibly suggesting that if said militia is no longer required, it might call that right into question).

In regards to the first amendment, of course those rights are tied together, if for no other reason that if someone wanted to mess with any one of those rights, they would have to challenge the whole amendment (rather clever of them) but no, in that case they are not providing context, it is a list... It seems there are many uses for commas.

In regards to 'the old west' comment, I believe that it is widely accepted that the shootout at the OK corral started because of the refusal to surrender their guns in conflict with the local ordinance. Many things have been romanticized and exaggerated, but that part has been agreed upon as historical fact.

http://www.historynet.com/gunfight-at-the-ok-corral-did-tom-mclaury-have-a-gun.htm

Another example:
http://www.historynet.com/ellsworth-ben-and-billy-thompsons-cow-town.htm/2

More:
http://www.gunblast.com/JessHardin_Hideouts.htm

While I contend that there are many examples of gun laws or 'ordinances' in the American West, I will concede that it is a somewhat specious argument, considering the fact that gun violence at that time was exaggerated in fiction. It was meant to be thought provoking.


 

 

If your defending your home you should be able to use any gun or rifle you need to use. Are you saying when the Gov. try's to take over the land like the Russians did with Stalin I shouldn't have as great a fire power as they do?

  This is precisely what the amendment was intended for.

 I enjoy the comment that seems to be thrown around so lightly concerning the US about wakening a sleeping giant ,when in reality ,  news flash, the people are the giant. And were being poke with a stick. Provoked more or less. We are being armed, and financially assaulted to encourage frustration, and fear. Things will continue to escalate in intensity, intentionally.

You couldn't get a job at McDonald's and become District Manager after 143 days of experience.
 
   You couldn't become Chief of Surgery after 143 days of experience.
 
   You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the Superintendent after 143 days of experience.
 
   You couldn't join the military and become a General after 143 days of experience.
 
   You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the Nightly News Anchor after 143 days of experience. 


    BUT....   

'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days.

We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start,
and strangely, a large sector of the American public is OK with this and campaigning for him.

We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet many are OK with this for the President of the United States of America?

Come on folks, we're not voting for the next American Idol!!!

Other than OMG I just merely stunned.  And he is doing well and people have no idea.

Right, but who of us will initiate a movement, because that is what it will take to get the attention .