This thread is here for those who cherish the Second Amendment, contained within the Bill of Rights, which pertain to individual rights within our Constitution. Please post information pertaining to supporting and preserving this right, which helps maintain all of our rights. I will start. Here is a petition that you can sign, whose signatures will be delivered to Capitol Hill, and is sponsored by the United States Concealed Carry Association and the Salem Radio Network: http://www.supportsecondamendment.com/ There are also two websites, among many others, that enable a quick and easy way for you to ask that your Congressman or Congresswoman support gun rights. Here they are: This one is sponsored by the NRA: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx This one is sponsored by Ruger: http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html Thank you for your support!
Bruce Willis: Don't infringe on Second Amendment: LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Bruce Willis says he's against new gun control laws that could infringe on Second Amendment rights. The "Die Hard" star also dismisses any link between Hollywood shootouts and real-life gun violence. "I think that you can't start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it's all going to become undone," Willis told The Associated Press in a recent interview while promoting his latest film, "A Good Day To Die Hard." ''If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn't they take all your rights away from you?" Willis' fifth outing as wise-cracking cop John McClane, due in theaters Feb. 14, comes as his action franchise marks its 25th anniversary. The 57-year-old actor will also be seen firing away at bad guys in the upcoming sequels "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" and "Red 2," both due later this year. But he believes "the real topic is diminished" when observers link Hollywood entertainment with high-profile mass shootings like those last year in Connecticut and Colorado. "No one commits a crime because they saw a film. There's nothing to support that," Willis said. "We're not making movies about people that have gone berserk, or gone nuts. Those kind of movies wouldn't last very long at all." Willis added that he doesn't see how additional legislation could prevent future mass shootings. "It's a difficult thing and I really feel bad for those families," he said. "I'm a father and it's just a tragedy. But I don't know how you legislate insanity. I don't know what you do about it. I don't even know how you begin to stop that." Source
As much as I hate anyone trying to ban guns, I'm going to tell it to you straight. We've all be had. The sheer fact that this is going on so long, and is so emotional, is more because the media and the gun industry is over hyping this to make a buck.
The media and the Obama Administration are over-hyping this. The firearms industry, GOA and NRA are just trying to defend our rights. Obama is making them money. He is the gun salesman of the year, several years in a row now. Gun sales are skyrocketing, and NRA and GOA memberships are too.
It doesn't matter who started this. If people are threatening to take away something, it's going to cause scarcity. The gun industry wants this, because it's means they make more money. They want this hyper, not because of rights, but because of money.
This was added to the constitution in 1791 and was appropriate at the time. Given the out of date crap you lot are talking about, I propose and be allowed, nothing else. That or you may wish to admit the US constitution is a load of outdated bollocks that simply is of no real use in the modern world.
Without the right, they don't make money. - - - Updated - - - Show me where it says what kind of weapons are included in our rights?
Hence why it's just assault weapons, not guns in general. But that's besides the point. Think about it. They know congress will not vote for an assault weapons ban, so why then the pressure from the gun industry? Surely with safe knowledge they don't have to spend as much money and energy as they are now. The only reason why they want this to continue is for money.
They banned them before. It can happen again. The AR market is huge, and there are hundreds of companies that manufacture weapons, parts and accessories for them. It would be a big blow to the industry if "just" AR's were banned.
Yes of course. But that's the point. The pro banners tried, and failed in the Senate. There's no reason to keep the hype up. The only reason why they want to, is because of money.
If that will be the end of it, fine. A vote is supposed to be taken, yes or no, and be over with...but not in the Obama Administration. There are backroom deals, executive orders and arm twisting.
It says nothing, thus my suggestion of limiting you twits to weapons that were available when the daft idea was first enshrined in law.
Journalist Steve Leblanc wrote for The Associated Press 18 January 2013: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A bill filed Friday in Massachusetts would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in the event that a firearm is used to injure. The insurance policies would give those injured by a weapon a legal recourse, backers of the bill say, but they also would create financial incentives that could reduce accidents and fatalities. Gun owners, for example, might see lower insurance rates if they agreed to take firearms training courses and properly stored their weapons. "Insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and make cars safer through the marketplace," said state Rep. David Linsky, the bill's sponsor. ...Under the bill proposed in Massachusetts, there would be specific penalties for anyone found in possession of a gun without insurance. The fines would range from $500 to $5,000 or up to a year in jail. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ article
Nothing like empowering thugs and their lawyers to go after law-abiding citizens protecting themselves or their property.
Owning a gun makes it more likely -- not less -- that one will be injured or killed in a home invasion. Guns do not increase people's safety, they take innocent lives. In a perfect world, I'd be in favor of a total gun ban and the destruction of all guns, but that's not politically possible today. Realistically, I'd be fine with Sweden-style restrictions on legal gun ownership (registration, background checks, training, bans on assault weapons, no conceal carry) and an aggressive effort to eradicate illegal guns. Let's do what we can to save lives.
I never said guns were never used in self defense, only that having a gun in the home makes it statistically more likely for the homeowner to be killed. http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/12/26/opinion/guns-just-dont-make-us-safer.html
Most gun owners are safe. Statistically, driving a car makes you more vulnerable to being in a car accident. I don't think folks want to stop driving. - - - Updated - - - If they were legal to buy, I suppose so. Get real.
They must be legal to buy. The second amendments protects my right to buy them. At least your interpretation does. Legal to buy? Lol... Legal to buy is the entire point of the second amendment.
