Democrats that may win 17 of 33 U.S. Senate races this year are rated "F" on gun-owners rights by NRA. States are CA (Feinstien),CT (Lieberman), DE, FL, HI, MA (Kennedy), MD, MI, MN, MO (McCaskill), NJ, NM, NY (Clinton), ND, VT, WA, WI (Kohl). ...........Source: NRAPVF.org
2006-10-18 06:23:54 · 21 answers · asked by senior citizen 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No. They need all 33 to have a veto proof majority. They can craft any legislation they want, it has to be able to withstand a veto.
And if they bring forth such legislation now they will assure a Republican President in 2008.
2006-10-18 06:31:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I know...you'll need those guns soon for the purpose of the "well armed militia" the Bill of Rights mentions. Not that the NRA gives a crap about any of the OTHER 9 rights...oh wait...8...b/c we just lost habeous corpus...Were you planning on getting a militia together for that one? I didn't think so. If a Republican president takes away habeous corpus it's not only ok it's FANTASTIC...but if a Democratic one did the same you NRA/sean hannity lovers would pitch a fit.The NRA pretends it cares about the Constutution and the Bill of Rights...but really all it is, is a club for emotionally stunted people who want to play with guns....and would sacrifice everything and everybody else so that they can keep their toys.
Don't worry Bubba...the Bush administration has made enough of a mess of things to where if the Dems come back your hunting rifle is pretty low down on the priority list.
2006-10-18 16:37:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Throughout all my life, this 'taking away our guns' scare has been talked about, and it's never happened, even when all three Houses were Democrats.
Democrats have no desire to take guns away from the public. They do have a desire to have them registered, and they have a desire to limit what TYPES of guns you can get. (Why does a hunter need something that puts out 30 rounds per second? Can a grenade launcher be classified as 'home protection'?) They want a waiting period to make sure that you're not buying a gun in a fit of anger to take home and shoot someone. They want a background check to make sure you're not selling a gun to someone who has already been convicted of a crime.
And your problem with all these is? What? Do you WANT a convicted felon to be able to buy an automatic weapon so they can go back to the place they got fired from yesterday and rock-n-roll all over their former coworkers?
Plus, any law to elimnate all guns would never pass a Constitution check. You can talk 'well-regulated militia' all you want, but the fact is, the Supreme Court will not take guns out of the hands of the people.
This is just a Republican scare tactic.
Know the facts. Ignore the B.S.
2006-10-18 14:27:53 · answer #3 · answered by Chredon 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I suspected as much your source is a bogus over the top organization. The Vermont senator looks like Bernie Sanders isn't anti-gun he isn't pro gun either he believes in reasonable gun control NOT take away your guns legislation but the NRA thinks that is the same thing when it is not. You will find most of these democrats are the same they don't want your guns they want the unnecessary guns off the street and out of production such as the Tech-9 a totally worthless weapon unless your doing a drive by. So save your scare mongering for the easily led conservatives who tend not to think things through.
2006-10-18 14:17:23 · answer #4 · answered by brian L 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think the NRA is a reliable source. So, Myeh on you.
It's a straw-man lie and the NRA is always playing this game especially at election time.
No one has ever had their gun taken away and they never will. They might make it more difficult for people to get guns or own complete military arsenals, sure. But that's not restricting your right to own a gun.
2006-10-18 16:32:36 · answer #5 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The 2nd Amendment is not a quarantee of rights. The 2nd Amendment limits Congress.
In other words, it's not saying you have a right to own weapons, it's saying Congress cannot limit ones rights. Therefore, states can limit or put restrictions on gun ownership.
When our forefathers were outlining our rights, the recognized that in some cases it wasn't about a guarantee of rights but rather a need to focus on what Congress could and could not limit as a response to the rule of the King prior to the revolution who was attempting to take away the Colonialists weapons.
And besides, what they were referring to was a "well regulated milita." In other words, a solider. Not your right to go out and shoot animals or just carry a gun.
Gun advocates seem to be foggy when it comes to history and historical context.
"Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law."
2006-10-18 13:32:07 · answer #6 · answered by misskate12001 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
By the Green Man, I hope so. I like Americans,much as you like children but why do you persist in the belief that guns are good for you. You murder rate is way too high.And before you tell me that if there weren't any guns then they would use knife or clubs. I know how to use a gun, a knife and a club and I know that it takes a lot of work to kill someone with a knife or club. If you were left to those two most of the lazy slobs would not even get involved.
2006-10-18 13:34:28 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
i hope the libs loss again and to those libs that have said they only want to get rid of "unnecessary "guns they change what "unnecessary " is all the time just look at California's gun laws why dose the Brady campaign to prevent gun violence give As and Bs to states that have high crime like New York , California ,New Jersey ,Washington DC and Ds and Fs to states with lower crime like in my state Kentucky i have the right to go buy a 50.cal machine gun but have you ever heard of somebody doing a drive by with one no the libs in California have all kinds of crazy gun laws yet look at all the crime they have because law biding people cant protect themselves
2006-10-19 05:13:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They'd have to use the military to do it. Guess what, the military wouldn't follow an order like that. None of my guns are registered. I don't like the paper trail that could be used to confiscate them if such a thing did happen. As far as the govt knows I have one Kel-Tec .32 auto, which I will gladly surrender to them while my real arsenal is hidden is a secret room in my house.
2006-10-18 13:29:46 · answer #9 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, not even if they get in power. Relax, quit scar-mongering. Life is like the Hokey-Cokey, the left foot has to go in every now and then.
2006-10-18 13:27:56 · answer #10 · answered by eantaelor 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋