Obviously one understands the Constitutional right guaranteed, not given, in the Second Amendment and one doesn't.
Taken straight from Obama's site August 20, 2008:
Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | UrbanPolicy (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement)

"As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

Taken straight from McCain's site August 20, 2008:
John McCain 2008 - John McCain for President (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm)

"Protecting Second Amendment Rights

John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.

Gun Manufacturer Liability

John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.

Assault Weapons

John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.

Importation of High Capacity Magazines

John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.

Gun Locks

John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.

Banning Ammunition

John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."

DC Personal Protection

As part of John McCain's defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.

Criminal Background Checks

John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Background Checks at Gun Shows

At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions.

The Firearm Purchase Waiting Period

John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.

The Confiscation of Firearms After an Emergency

John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation.

Stiffer Penalties for Criminals Who Use a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime

John McCain believes in strict, mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegally possess a firearm. Enforcing the current laws on the books is the best way to deter crime."

If you're a gun owner you won't be for long if Obama gets in office or you'd better keep what you have because he'll make sure you won't be able to buy another.

McCain is definetly better than Obamanation on gun rights, but his voting record on Second Amendment issues is not sterling.
I don't agree on stricter punishments for people who commit crimes with guns. Why does it matter which tool is used in a crime, punish the perps for the crime itself!
Also this so called gun show loophole, there is no such thing and requiring individuals who want to sell their gun to another individual to have to do a background check (which would have to be done through an FFL transfer) is ludicrous. If I want to sell a gun through the want adds or give one of my rifles to my son or daughter, I should not have to go through an FFL and pay some damn fee. That is not freedom!
All in all, because of McCains better stance on the Second Amendment, taxes and being a LOT less socialistic than Obama, he will get my vote

...a no vote for Obama because he's aggresively anti-second amendment, but a yes vote for McCain because he is less so? Never mind McCain's legislative hostility to free speech, the very speech that allows we, the people, to challenge either one of them, any one, in the first place?

I'm not voting lesser of evils, not when the lesser evil isn't even close to what I support.

People are free to vote so that rights are taken slower than they might otherwise be. We were a better nation with Bill Clinton as president and the mob of conservatives his leadership inspired the people to send to DC than we have been under Bush and the mob of unprincipled dollar chasers he wrought.

McCain is an unprincipled leader. Just look at his record. If he's getting better looking to you all just because closing time is approaching just remember; there will be the next morning when your heads clear. Is one night, so to speak, worth that?

I'm willing to be convinced.

...a no vote for Obama because he's aggresively anti-second amendment, but a yes vote for McCain because he is less so? Never mind McCain's legislative hostility to free speech, the very speech that allows we, the people, to challenge either one of them, any one, in the first place?

I'm not voting lesser of evils, not when the lesser evil isn't even close to what I support.

People are free to vote so that rights are taken slower than they might otherwise be. We were a better nation with Bill Clinton as president and the mob of conservatives his leadership inspired the people to send to DC than we have been under Bush and the mob of unprincipled dollar chasers he wrought.

McCain is an unprincipled leader. Just look at his record. If he's getting better looking to you all just because closing time is approaching just remember; there will be the next morning when your heads clear. Is one night, so to speak, worth that?

I'm willing to be convinced.
Just passing along information.

Voting conservative in Maryland is an exercise in futility. There are too many mouth breathers in this state.

I plan to vote for myself in a write in. At least I will vote for someone I trust.

That may be NObama's 2ND amendment stance now, but anyone who follows his rhetoric clearly knows he is anti-gun, unless of course it's a gun carrying dude that is protecting NObama and his families ass!!! :coffee:

Just passing along information.



...that's fine. I'm not knocking on you at all.

Your thread inspired me to reflect on how McCain has risen up so much in context of it being him or Obama. I just wanted to reflect on the fact that I am no more excited about jumping out a 20 story window than I am a 30 story one amidst all this excitement and joy of how much closer to the ground we will be from the 20th.

Well, you can knock me, because we have been through this before, but...

I don't see anything in the consitution that says you have unlimited rights to bear arms.
Example, in courts, precedance plays an important role. The precedent has long been set that you cannot own any weapon the military has - some of you will say that's good, some will say that's bad. But go ahead, go out and try to buy plastic explosives or make your own, or buy a missle, or a large number of machine guns, etc, they are all banned. So if the precedent has been that the government CAN control what arms you buy then I don't see why they can't continue to do so for what type of guns you own, waiting periods, etc. Just pointing that out...

I don't see anything in the consitution that says you have unlimited rights to bear arms.

"Shall not be infringed" :shrug:

"Shall not be infringed" :shrug:

:killingme

Try this one, too;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

...and;

Fix the McCain-Feingold Law: Oops—Can I Say That? - Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34642.html)

Now it is official: The United States of America has a federal bureaucracy in charge of deciding who can say what about politicians during campaign season. We can argue, and people do, about whether this state of affairs is good or bad, better or worse than some alternative. What is inarguable is that America now has what amounts to a federal speech code, enforced with jail terms of up to five years.

Well, you can knock me, because we have been through this before, but...

I don't see anything in the consitution that says you have unlimited rights to bear arms.
Example, in courts, precedance plays an important role. The precedent has long been set that you cannot own any weapon the military has - some of you will say that's good, some will say that's bad. But go ahead, go out and try to buy plastic explosives or make your own, or buy a missle, or a large number of machine guns, etc, they are all banned. So if the precedent has been that the government CAN control what arms you buy then I don't see why they can't continue to do so for what type of guns you own, waiting periods, etc. Just pointing that out...

All law is trumped by the Constitution. It sets all precedence. Any law, rule, or ruling that is contrary to the Constitution is un-Constitutional and therefore should be null and void. States have to affirm the Constitution as part of the admission to the United States. As far as citizens being able to have unlimited rights to bear arms, what don't you understand about the phrase "shall not be infringed?"

All law is trumped by the Constitution. It sets all precedence. Any law, rule, or ruling that is contrary to the Constitution is un-Constitutional and therefore should be null and void. States have to affirm the Constitution as part of the admission to the United States. As far as citizens being able to have unlimited rights to bear arms, what don't you understand about the phrase "shall not be infringed?"

What I understand is that you don't have the right to own anything or everything the military does. End of story. We can argue about whether you should all day, although anyone who thinks they should is nuts.

That's right folks, flame throwers and mustard gas, isle 9, grenades, isle 10, oh, our blue light special, nuclear arms on sale in isle 15.... yeah, that's what the founders of the country really had in mind. I fully agree they had in mind the ability to defend yourself and to keep the government in check. But guess what - try and exercise that right - form a militia with the intent to overthorw the current government and see what happens to you. Is that the FBI coming after you?

The founders never invisioned technology and chemicals that could destroy whole cities - and they certainly would have never have wanted it in everyone's hands.

What I understand is that you don't have the right to own anything or everything the military does. End of story. We can argue about whether you should all day, although anyone who thinks they should is nuts.

That's right folks, flame throwers and mustard gas, isle 9, grenades, isle 10, oh, our blue light special, nuclear arms on sale in isle 15.... yeah, that's what the founders of the country really had in mind. I fully agree they had in mind the ability to defend yourself and to keep the government in check. But guess what - try and exercise that right - form a militia with the intent to overthorw the current government and see what happens to you. Is that the FBI coming after you?

The founders never invisioned technology and chemicals that could destroy whole cities - and they certainly would have never have wanted it in everyone's hands.


...true. The establishment of our nation depended in many cases on individuals bearing their private arms, including cannon. Well into the 1800's the government would pay people to use their ships, the nuke of the day, against pirates and other nations.

In our civil war, it was common for generals to buy weapons for their men.

There's a lot of things the founders could not have imagined today including the welfare state, monstrous lack of self control and lack of personal responsibility in addition to all sorts of tremendous violations of the laws they set up. So, let's not play the game of what they could or could not imagine. Let's just be reasonable. If you can see them disagreeing with you or I owning a nuke, then we can damn sure see them disagreeing with confiscatory tax policies, DC's gun laws and the intrusive nature of most of our politics today.

Yes?

What I understand is that you don't have the right to own anything or everything the military does. End of story. We can argue about whether you should all day, although anyone who thinks they should is nuts.

That's right folks, flame throwers and mustard gas, isle 9, grenades, isle 10, oh, our blue light special, nuclear arms on sale in isle 15.... yeah, that's what the founders of the country really had in mind. I fully agree they had in mind the ability to defend yourself and to keep the government in check. But guess what - try and exercise that right - form a militia with the intent to overthorw the current government and see what happens to you. Is that the FBI coming after you?

The founders never invisioned technology and chemicals that could destroy whole cities - and they certainly would have never have wanted it in everyone's hands.

You apparently do not realize that the militia still exists today, is Constitutional, and protected, and is not the National Guard.

At the time of the founders, private people owned war ships, artillery, and the most modern weapons of the day and that is what the founders intended for the citizens. If it were not for the privately owned ships that were heavily armed, cannon, and weapons in the hands of the people, the Revolution would have failed.

Okay, fine, start a peition to make anthrax, mustard gas and open a store to sell them.
I think you will find the majority of americans won't support you.

As well, it only takes one nut with those to kill tens of thousands, and there are plenty of nuts around. Is that what you really want and think the founders wanted? No, of course not, you just realize that if you admit they didn't intend for that sort of use of 'arms' then than means the government CAN regulate and limit and you are then worried about your own arms. The fact is you don't want anyone here owning mustard gas or ricen or nuclear weapons, you just realize I have you over a barrell. Either right to regulate or not. Not is unacceptable.