in regards to both administrations argument:

The right to keep and bear arms, is a constitutionally enumerated right.

Therefore, it is the duty of the union government, to enforce that right, as such was the purpose of the creation of the federal government by the people of several states, universally, across the whole union.

Bush administration did not strike down the California AWB, and therefore, left my rights as a citizen of the union unprotected.

This is the case where FED should have come down on California, and force it to keep along with the constitution. Yet, Bush failed to perform hes constitutional duty.

And yet, as others have said, the federal government never misses a chance to intervene in the business of the states, where it is not allowed to.

In other words, the federal government has now positioned itself, directly opposite to its constitutional duty and purpose for existence.

California's AWB is California's business.. The constitution recognises certain right, there's no "enforcement" of rights.. I think it sucks that California has the restrictions it does but how could bush have done anything about it?

he didn't ram through more restrictions, he didn't go around the coutnry and start slashing at State laws, which is not his right to do in the first place. What could Bush have done to help gun-totin' Californians with the State of California's AWB??

no, I don't buy that Bush was in anyway anti-gun..

Ol' Barry on the other hand is on the record as supporting a ban on all semi-automatics (handguns, rifles and shotguns) and would support restrictions on ammunition..

keep your eyes on the ball.

As for the gun rights, there has to be restrictions on the gun laws to protect those worthy Americans who chose not to carry a gun around, from the occasionally crazy ones who do. Sorry if that offends but it is true. Some people are not mentally well enough to carry weapons around freely.

israelis have had the power in this country for many years now. isn't it funny how pelosi is an israel first person. so is harry reid, so is chriss dodd, so is barney franks. these people would like nothing more than to see americans not be able to defend themselves with their own guns from attacks.

this is a list of israel firsters in our government.

Senate
(13— 2 Republicans, 9 Democrats, 2 Independents)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

House
(30— 1 Republican, 29 Democrats)

Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
Howard Berman (D-CA)
Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Stephen Cohen (D-TN)*
Susan Davis (D-CA)
Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)*
Jane Harman (D-CA)
Paul Hodes (D-NH)*
Steve Israel (D-NY)
Steve Kagen (D-WI)*
Ronald Klein (D-FL)*
Tom Lantos (D-CA)
Sander Levin (D-MI)
Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Steve Rothman (D-NJ)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Robert Wexler (D-FL)
John Yarmuth (D-KY)*

there has not been ONE incident of a person with a concealed hangun license going nuts and shooting people.

besides, courts have ruled that police have no obligation to stop someone from shooting you or to put themselves in harms way to protect you. I'm trying to find the case..

I hate to tell you this but when it comes to the mean streets of America, you have to be responsible for your own safety. You can't count on anyone but yourself to help you if when trouble starts.



I think the 1968 law is perfectly sufficient in defining what people can and can't possess..

Yes there has. Try McDonalds. Or the Post Office.



Good luck with that in Oregon. Under the law here, if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them and they die, you get brought up on murder one charges. You're expected to call the police and let them handle it. Vigilantes aren't tolerated in this state.

You cannot find the incidents because you do not want to. I have seen with my own eyes people who legally own guns and are not mentally well enough to afford such a responsibility.

The innocent Americans shot on the streets or shopping malls or churches or in their yard or in their car, etc... are not at fault. The government is at fault for not protecting them from the guns.

I was raised with guns and know how to use them. But I have chosen not to carry one because I had kids in the house. I know not to brandish it, I know without bullets in it it is no use to me, I know that it is great great responsibility. It is my responsibility to make sure that noone gets ahold of my loaded weapon and uses it on others or myself. Most gun owners cannot even guarentee this one responsibility. Let alone the mental capacity it takes to be a responsible handler of it otherwise.

So don't tell me about rights. The non gun carrying American has just as much right to live and not be killed by a gun as the gun carrying American.

There are several cases where a legal gun owner had their gun taken away from them and used against them in a break in. If people are legally allowed to carry/use weapons (which they should be) they should also be required to have training to properly carry/use those weapons.

so now the thesis is that "most gun owners" aren't responsible and lack mental capacity to be responsible for their firearms..

that's such a wrecklessly uninformed position. purposefully uniformed. an out right falsehood ..

now I've heard it all..

And extensive deep psychological evalutations to ensure that they are mentally viable to hold the responsibility of the weapon.

Absolutely not. That would be a clear violation of their civil rights. Not to mention patient/doctor confidentiality laws.

as the wind changed directions and the people suddenly had their luxuries taken away, the thought of survival once again materialized. the people, left with no industries, found that their ancestors had betrayed them by taking away the knowledge of the hunter gatherers. now with no way of surviving under the ways they had grown accustomed to, the people were forced to find the old, tried and true ways of survival. the peoples built their own shelters on land that they staked out themselves under the old squatter's rights provision. then the peoples found that in order to protect their tiny plot in the world, they would need weapons greater than any intruder's weapon. for as many places there were to live, were there peoples to live there. the peoples found out that that the animals would not come to them voluntarily and lay there like a big mac to be eaten and devoured. the bullets of a gun are faster than the animals can run. every one must eat.

Then no guns. I will have to side for the non gun carrying Americans if that is the case. Because they are at a disadvantage from the crazies who own guns. I cannot in my right mind allow for the mentally unstable to be allowed to walk around shooting whoever they want whenever they get ready.

Then go live somewhere else. Owning a gun is a right in this country. With liberty comes risks. If you'd rather be safe, there are plenty of other places in the world where liberty isn't an option.

when one puts themselves into the position of allowing or not allowing the actions of others, then why is it not righteous for others to allow or not allow your own actions? if you are to them as many other people who inhabit the street and they are the same to you, under who's elections will you carry out these orders? under who's force will they be made to obey?

I have a better idea, beside Lynard Skynard's idea of course to throw them all in the ocean, I will stay in my native America and I will fight for the rights of those innocents killed by crazies with guns and you will just have to live with it. I have a voice also and try as I might it never shuts up......lol

More power to you. If you can get enough support to propose a constitutional amendment so much the better. Until then, the law of the land is against you.

The word “right” is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.