Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The argument is certainly valid. Back in 08' after he was elected, he couldn't do anything that might sway middle Americas vote aganst him if he wanted a second term. If he gets re-elected, what has he to lose?
This is true, but between him and mitt romney, who has the worse record on gun control?
When I say total record I mean going back to what he supported over his career whether it was passed as legislation or not. It's quite clear he's anti gun . If you take the statements before and after the DC decision as an example:
In one statement he supports our constitutional right as individuals and then supports government restrictions.
LOCAL government restrictions. Like "state rights," and allowing states to make their own laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Republicans want these days?
LOCAL government restrictions. Like "state rights," and allowing states to make their own laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Republicans want these days?
LOCAL government restrictions. Like "state rights," and allowing states to make their own laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Republicans want these days?
He is saying because its a federal protection under the second amendment that states can't make those laws.
I would invite the poster to watch any old west movie, or read any accurate history account of towns, banning firearms.
And states try and pass laws that are unconstitutional often. Hell, some states want to outlaw abortion by outlawing all forms of birth control. But thats not in line with federal law by the posters definition of the constitution.
Lots of politicians do things in local elections and governments that aren't ok for the federal government to do. Remember, the Supreme court said its ok for states and cities to ban firearms of certain types. Obama did no differently.
But this is selective history, not actual that they are using.
LOCAL government restrictions. Like "state rights," and allowing states to make their own laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Republicans want these days?
Less government at all levels in particular the federal level, individual rights guaranteed in the constitution are paramount no matter what level of government. It doesn't get any more local than the individual.
Hell, some states want to outlaw abortion by outlawing all forms of birth control. But thats not in line with federal law by the posters definition of the constitution.
I dare you to find anything in the 10K plus posts I've made that would support your assertion.
The only "Gun Grabber" on the current tickets is Mr. Mitt Romney. He was instrumental in passing the "assault weapon" ban when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Wow- a RW gun grabber. How neat.
Yup that's right Greg..... I am not voting for Romney nor Obama.
I see code instead of the regular quote, but i didn't change anything you said.
The two rights that will be most beaten like the proverbial dead horse in this campaign season, the right to bear arms and the right to an abortion, are the two safest.
That there is irony.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
