Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Anyone remember him acting like a total ******* to the guy with the rifle at the Democratic debate. It became a big deal on youtube."


***NO, but I do remember him totaling the guy on youtube with the assault rifle at the Democratic debate - the guy who referred to his rifle as "his baby" and wanted to know if Biden would pass legislation to help make it easier for law enforcement to "take his baby away from him".

The guy was a f u c k i n g sicko who needed to be called out - and Joe Biden had the guts to do it.

Which is one of the many reasons why he'll make a great vice president.

[1bad65]

I'm not denying some Saudi citizens have supported and comitted terrorist acts. I want to see where the Saudi GOVERNMENT pays suicide bomber's families.

Saddam was the President of Iraq. He ran the country. He paid the bomber's families. I want to see where the Saudi GOVERNMENT does the same.

[1bad65]

The guy was a f u c k i n g sicko who needed to be called out - and Joe Biden had the guts to do it.

I guess Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, etc are all 'f u c k i n g sickos' as well then.

[SimonM]

Your constitution doesn't say "right to bear automatic assault weapons" right?

[The Willow Sword]

but not obsessive about it like the numuts of the NRA are, the constitution DOES give us the right to bear "ARMS" and of course when that was adopted they did not have fully automatic "ARMS" at the time. we have since created more advanced weaponry. Do i need to explain it to you? dont insult intelligences here when it comes to constitution intepretation.

It was stupid and moronic for that guy to show up with "his baby" and parade himself like an idiot. Even though i dont really Like Joe Biden i think he dealt with that wacko perfectly. I think any other person who is a smart and humble gun owner would have kicked this guy's @ss as well.

Peace,TWS

[1bad65]

Your constitution doesn't say "right to bear automatic assault weapons" right?

Gotta fall back on semantics, huh?

Ok, lets do that. The 3rd Amendment reads:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

So, according to your logic the Goverment could do it an apartment, condominium, or mobile home then, right?

[Lucas]

i want to start carrying a RPG in that case. can never be too safe. if one guy has a semi auto asault rifle, i want propelled grenades so im more safe from him.

you dont need more than a pistol imo. pistols kill people just fine. save the big guns for the police and military.

[1bad65]

Basen on what Obama and Biden have said about gun owners, they have lost a big part of a large voting bloc.

Remember how well Obama's condescending remarks on guns and religion played out in Pennsylvania? A toss up state went overwhelmingly to Hillary after his remarks.

[1bad65]

save the big guns for the police and military.

In the Founding Fathers time, private citiznes actually had better, more accurate rifles than the Armies of the day did. They trusted the citizenry because they knew an armed populace was the best way to combat tyranny.

What does that say about politicians who want to outlaw as many guns as possible in the hands of the people?

[Lucas]

muskets? please.

your lowest grade modern pistol makes the best gun back then look like a toy.

there is necessity and then there is desire. two totally different things.

also, our population is QUITE a bit different then it was a couple hundy years ago.

[Lucas]

dont get me wrong, im all for owning guns. rifles are fine, if they are for hunting. (although if your really cool you use a bow) but imo you dont NEEEEEEEED more than a handgun.

you just dont need more.

[SimonM]

Gotta fall back on semantics, huh?

Ok, lets do that. The 3rd Amendment reads:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

So, according to your logic the Goverment could do it an apartment, condominium, or mobile home then, right?

Actually no.

What I'm arguing is that limiting the scope of those arms which the public has access to is not violating the right to carry non-descript "arms".

As the second ammendment speaks to what is allowed and the third instead speaks to a disallowed activity they are not a good comparisson. Instead I'd be more likely to compare it to the first ammendment and how it has been ruled in your courts that it does not protect libelous print, slanderous speech or shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

[SimonM]

dont get me wrong, im all for owning guns. rifles are fine, if they are for hunting. (although if your really cool you use a bow) but imo you dont NEEEEEEEED more than a handgun.

you just dont need more.

There is a reasonable argument for allowing access to bolt-action rifles and breech loading shotguns. You know, for hunting.

But assault rifles, sub machine guns, rocket launchers and tactical nuclear weapons should NOT be in public hands.

[MasterKiller]

In the Founding Fathers time, private citiznes actually had better, more accurate rifles than the Armies of the day did. They trusted the citizenry because they knew an armed populace was the best way to combat tyranny.

They also counted slaves as 1/3 of a person. That was then. This is now.

[Vash]

Please note her comments on the home-owner defending his place of residence against a mob.

Also, the remarks regarding the real reason for Amendment Two.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...675&pr=goog-sl