PA Gov. Rendell Wants Tough Gun Laws in Response to Cop Killings

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by tony hipchest

which brings us to a dilemma. there are only two possible ways to achieve this "balance" that was the original intent.

1) we either make nukes, planes, tanks available to all private citezens. OR

2) we disband the military or strip them down to where they have nothing but sporting equipment. (which is basically all the revolutionaries had- kniives, swords, horses, rifles, pistols, muskets).

in other words the original intent is vastly outdated and to try to live by it literally, is suicide.

While I disagree that is the original intent, I'm sure there is a "balance" between your two solutions, an assault weapons ban.

[steelwall]

Toney is just argueing for the sake of argueing. He was the crazy kid our there getting drunk at 9 years old blowing away bunnies with a 12 gauge from the back of a pick up

Seriously, we have gotten into this before. The "assualt" weapons that everybody is so afraid of, and can be bought from about any pawn shop, are really not uch different from weapons that would absolutly not fall under this ban.

Automatic weapons are allready banned, these AK's and SKS' are being sold semi-automatic. Tons of other guns out there are semi-auto. The ban won'twork. It will not take these guns out of the "loonies" hands, and would probably push more people over the edge.

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by steelwall

Toney is just argueing for the sake of argueing. He was the crazy kid our there getting drunk at 9 years old blowing away bunnies with a 12 gauge from the back of a pick up

Seriously, we have gotten into this before. The "assualt" weapons that everybody is so afraid of, and can be bought from about any pawn shop, are really not uch different from weapons that would absolutly not fall under this ban.

Automatic weapons are allready banned, these AK's and SKS' are being sold semi-automatic. Tons of other guns out there are semi-auto. The ban won'twork. It will not take these guns out of the "loonies" hands, and would probably push more people over the edge.

I agree with you there.

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by lambertfan99

http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/201085

This is why we need guns

I like how the 911 dispatcher directs her to tell her husband to put the gun down, "if he shot him, he isn't going to come in." Like the husband repeatedly saying I don't want to hurt you had some deterring effect.

Incidentally, home defense is one of the reasons the Supreme Court used to rule D.C.'s gun ban unconstitutional.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by lambertfan99

Sure HTG why not let them ban AKs, because we all know that is only the beginning. One at a time England ahas eliminated gun "types" till they can't even get a shotgun to hunt with.


[YOUTUBE]qGVAQOUi6ec[/YOUTUBE]

Watch the above video people. This is what is in store for us here.

With all due respect to "law enforcement", don't delude yourself into thinking they protect you and yours in any way. The bad guys are and will always be armed. Your only defense is what measures you have taken for yourself.

And the PoS "we" elected is coming to take your guns. He is the criminal.

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by Vincent

Watch the above video people. This is what is in store for us here.

With all due respect to "law enforcement", don't delude yourself into thinking they protect you and yours in any way. The bad guys are and will always be armed. Your only defense is what measures you have taken for yourself.

And the PoS "we" elected is coming to take your guns. He is the criminal.

You do realize that the President cannot "take" your guns? The President does not create laws, Congress does. Even if Congress passes a law banning all guns, the current Supreme Court would never let it fly given their stance on D.C.'s gun ban. So you would have to have one of the conservative Justices retire, which I doubt will happen until Obama's 2nd term, if there is one.

Bottom line, your guns are safe for at least 4 more years.

[MACH1]

Originally Posted by SteelersinCA

You do realize that the President cannot "take" your guns? The President does not create laws, Congress does. Even if Congress passes a law banning all guns, the current Supreme Court would never let it fly given their stance on D.C.'s gun ban. So you would have to have one of the conservative Justices retire, which I doubt will happen until Obama's 2nd term, if there is one.

Bottom line, your guns are safe for at least 4 more years.

It depends on what nancy bitchlosi can get pushed through.

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by MACH1

It depends on what nancy bitchlosi can get pushed through.

They don't have the balls to try a gun ban. They realize it would be dumb and the SCOTUS would crush it instantaneously.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by SteelersinCA

You do realize that the President cannot "take" your guns? The President does not create laws, Congress does. Even if Congress passes a law banning all guns, the current Supreme Court would never let it fly given their stance on D.C.'s gun ban. So you would have to have one of the conservative Justices retire, which I doubt will happen until Obama's 2nd term, if there is one.

Bottom line, your guns are safe for at least 4 more years.

The President sets the agenda. Congress enacts laws. Thats why the 2nd stated that the right shall not be abridged. The problem here is that the house, senate, and White House are occupied by left wing activists that are unified in their desire to disarm their constituents, and operate largely unopposed, save their armed constituency

We don't have the balance of a "two party" system because the stupid party abdicated to the dems. The only balance to the out of control federalies is an armed and seriously pissed off electorate. And hopefully 2010 will sent these marxist @#$#$#@#$#$ers back to their holes and leave bho alone in the White House until he's dispatched in 2012.