The Supreme Court only recently recognized that that the Second Amendment gave individuals a right to bear arms. And it was only a 5-4 decision of a Roberts Supreme Court then. Lynn, I don't think the individual right to bear arms is written in stone. The ink is still wet.

Lynn,

I think you will find a lot of us are open to change, but we don't trust the politicians. They are not out to development solution and improve our country. They are out for power and votes. it's pathetic to watch it in action and many of us are more comfortable with less government intervention.

I think you would find the vast majority of the gun owners don't worry one bit regulations or the government taking our guns away. This is just media hype from the extreme to gain media attention. If you think the government is going to take guns away you are just not thinking logical. First off how would they do that:
1. Local law enforcement doesn't have the man power to round up guns nor would they ever agree to it regardless of the law.
2. Military doesn't have the resources and they would never agree to it either
3. Vast majority of gun owners would never turn their guns in

I know some say their is no way citizens can compete with military if they decided to take guns away. Can you imagine how that would work. The vast majority of the military weapons would be useless given the collateral damage, so it would be door to door combat. You really thing our law enforcement or military are going to go into our neighborhoods across American and enforce this.

My personal opinion is our leadership is once again wasting tax payer dollars on an issue for political gain and should be working on a budget and the economy.

Brad and I will be teaming up for the next season of "Buckwild." If you haven't seen it, its the Appalachian version of Jersey Shore. Tom, you will will really enjoy the language. They provide subtitles so others can understand. But, regretably, no "real" mountains.

+Ben

There is no huge problem of people voting that aren't supposed to

The reason for laws like requiring a driver's license to vote, is because that will disqualify a bunch of voters that are more likely to vote for Democrats

Or reducing the number of voting machines in precincts that have more Democrats registered

Or taking the names of felons from Texas and challenging voters with similar names in Florida which means they weren't counted in the 2000 election

Or sending registered mail to people in Democratic districts, and if the mail is returned undeliverable, then challenge them in the next election as no longer living in that district so they're not entitled to vote - it's called "caging" - it's illegal and the Republicans were convicted of doing it and the court told them to stop but they keep doing it

etc... look at "voter supression" in wikipedia

"I think you would find the vast majority of the gun owners don't worry one bit regulations or the government taking our guns away." I don't think that's a true statement around here anyway. I think gun owners around here really have that concern. I think that's why gun sales have suddenly increased. Folks around here are scared of "Obamer" taking there guns. This was true in his first term too despite the fact that he took no action as president adverse to gun rights.

"Tom, you will will really enjoy the language. They provide subtitles so others can understand."

I'm psyched, Ben. I can hardly wait for the first installment. Are they going to play the theme from Deliverance while the credits roll? Now, what did they call it....? Darn, but my memory is getting bad. Ah, got it, Drooling Banjos! ;)

No one's taking anyone's gun away

It's all just a publicity campaign by the NRA and others to sell more guns so gun manufacturers make more money

And liberals play into it

Ben,

I'm fine with requiring people to have some type of ID to vote. However the rep agenda was to keep people from voting and not equality of voting. Dem on the other hand wanted no part in requiring ID's because it would have cost them votes. See it's both parties playing the game. Let's call it like it is and move on. Every issue the battle over is about the vote and power.

"Many of the things that the framers of the constitution knew were needed for the constitution and republic to work as intended just didn't pan out. The amendments to the constitution are an aknowledgement of this. The second amendment reflects this, as do all of the others that reflect that changes or clarification of the constitution are necessary and desirable. Why is it that hard to accept that, for instance, voting rights and eligibility needed to be changed or clarified, but the second amendment can't be altered?"

I just BAG=Busted a gut
"subtitle for Tom"= LOL.

"I'm fine with requiring people to have some type of ID to vote. However the rep agenda was to keep people from voting and not equality of voting. Dem on the other hand wanted no part in requiring ID's because it would have cost them votes. See it's both parties playing the game."

Darned if you aren't about the most reasonable Republican I've ever come across, Brad. Gives me hope we can meet somewhere in the center someday and at least talk things over.

Only problem is where do we get the money for interpreters? ;)

Maybe it was pure luck, but the Ds sure were on the right side of that.
I do have a healthy cynicism of political power, but not as strong as yours, Brad. I suspect I have a stronger sense of cynicism of financial powers.

"I'm fine with requiring people to have some type of ID to vote. However the rep agenda was to keep people from voting and not equality of voting. Dem on the other hand wanted no part in requiring ID's because it would have cost them votes. See it's both parties playing the game."

Yes - it's in Rs interest to require photo ID but not the Ds

that's obviously why they are arguing their positions


but, there's a bunch of people that don't have photo ID that are entitled to vote

and there aren't a bunch of people voting that would be prevented if they required photo ID


maybe the merits of the case should determine it, not who would benefit

I have to agree with Tom on this one Brad. You are, in my experience of Republicans (which includes pretty much all my family) very reasonable. Gives me hope too ;)

Gun sales have shot through the roof because of the threat of an assault weapons ban. Gun owners assume that they will be able to keep banned weapons if they buy them before a new ban. It's the same thing with a magazine capacity limit. A lot of firearm manufactures have ceased production until the political climate around firearms works itself out.

This one puzzles me a little, and I tend to agree that this should be judged on its merits rather than political motivation. Seems to me you need ID to get into a bar or buy alcohol, and as I recall there used to be a handful of Mexican Americans (actual Americans, not illegals) who would get rounded up and deported to Mexico if they DIDN'T have ID on them (at a restaurant I worked in in SoCal). So mostly these guys used to make sure they had photo ID on them. Why should voting be any less stringent? Are there big impediments to getting photo ID by legal citizens who are over 18? If so, maybe better to remove those impediments?

Lynn, I definitely had the same question when the issue first arose. I think the idea is that the people who don't have a photo ID, typically a drivers license, are disproportionately old, poor, or minorities. If they don't have the ID, they will be prevented from voting. I don't really think that its impossible for those people to get them if they have the time and money to do it. Its an extra hoop for a largely disenfranchised group to have to jump through. From a practical and statistical standpoint, they are much less likely to already have the ID. The rest of us who has IDs have no extra hoops since already have an ID.

The backdrop of this is important, though. Voter fraud is believed to be very low. R politicians have been clear that the rational for the requirement is to reduce voter turnout in a way that is good for them.

"No one's taking anyone's gun away

It's all just a publicity campaign by the NRA and others to sell more guns so gun manufacturers make more money

And liberals play into it"
Says Jerry-


Many people may feel like that, but yes Jerry there are those who think it would be better to disarm. It is now
a law to do so in New York state according to Gov. Cuomo.

" “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option."

Thanks Ben for clarifying the problems with ID. I wasn't sure because I have been living a long time outside the US, in a country where you need only go to a post office and apply (no charge). You need a witnessed passport style photograph to present (or passport etc...) and they just send it to you in the mail when its finished. Is it much harder in the US? I guess not everyone lives close to a PO, but I'll bet these people don't live close to polling booths either???

" “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.""

David, does this apply to legally owned guns, or only illegal ones? Surely you can still own a gun in New York?

David

Yes, just my opinion : )

There are many liberals that would like all guns taken away, but there are many liberals that don't. There's no way there will ever be a majority. Maybe there will be enough votes to ban assault weapons, require all people be approved, and/or high capacity clips

So it makes sense to buy assault weapons and high capacity clips or any gun if you're a felon - but probably not necesary.

But there's a run on all guns and ammunition which is just hysteria

During the first term of Obama, all he did was make a few changes that allow people to take guns into National Parks and such, yet people were saying "Obama's going to take your guns away" and there were huge arms sales