http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...rpc=22&sp=true

http://tinyurl.com/5qzoyz

Liberals Lose.

America Wins....

--

Scott in Florida

In article <52n764d042d8e6pob5q7fngbu9sbvf06n4@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote:

> http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...dType=RSS&feed
> Name=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5qzoyz
>
> Liberals Lose.
>
> America Wins....

I would have hoped it would be more lopsided, but I guess the supremes
are political too. Far left wingers need to be replaced. We have a lot
to do between now and Nov.
--

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:43:19 -0500, dbu <nospam@nospam.moc> wrote:

>In article <52n764d042d8e6pob5q7fngbu9sbvf06n4@4ax.com>,
> Scott in Florida <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote:
>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...dType=RSS&feed
>> Name=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5qzoyz
>>
>> Liberals Lose.
>>
>> America Wins....
>
>I would have hoped it would be more lopsided, but I guess the supremes
>are political too. Far left wingers need to be replaced. We have a lot
>to do between now and Nov.

There are a LOT of 'Republicans' that need to have their arses kicked,
too.

The Republicans have forgotten what the hell the Republican Party
is....

--

Scott in Florida

dbu wrote:
> In article <52n764d042d8e6pob5q7fngbu9sbvf06n4@4ax.com>,
> Scott in Florida <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote:
>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...dType=RSS&feed
>> Name=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5qzoyz
>>
>> Liberals Lose.
>>
>> America Wins....
>
> I would have hoped it would be more lopsided, but I guess the supremes
> are political too. Far left wingers need to be replaced. We have a lot
> to do between now and Nov.

What's disappointing is that they didn't go further than just striking
down the handgun ban and make it more clear what can and can't be regulated.

The D.C. law on gun ownership of machine guns still stands, and they
classify "machine guns," as "any gun "which shoots, is designed to
shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot
semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading." This
includes a lot of pistols, but revolvers will now be allowed, which is
fine. So now the NRA will be fighting for changing the machine gun
classification to exclude semi-automatic pistols.

The neo-cons and the NRA have long opposed background checks on gun
sales at gun shows preferring to allow criminals and mentally disturbed
individuals to buy guns. Both McCain and Obama oppose unregulated gun
show sales. The neo-cons have long favored sales of automatic and
semi-automatic weapons to individuals, but the court's decision didn't
address whether or not these weapons could be regulated or not. Both
McCain and Obama oppose the sale of automatic weapons to individuals.

The NRA is touting this decision as a huge victory, but the decision
actually allows for regulations on handgun sales that they've long
opposed. "The gun lobby still disagrees with Mr. McCain’s support for
background checks for firearm sales at gun shows."

It's not a liberal or conservative issue. Other than the neo-cons, both
groups, for the most part, aren't opposed to handgun ownership by
responsible individuals, they just want to keep handguns out of the
hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed, two groups that the NRA
doesn't want to deprive from ownership.

In article <U4U8k.34$cn7.12@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> dbu wrote:
> > In article <52n764d042d8e6pob5q7fngbu9sbvf06n4@4ax.com>,
> > Scott in Florida <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...feedType=RSS&f
> >> eed
> >> Name=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/5qzoyz
> >>
> >> Liberals Lose.
> >>
> >> America Wins....
> >
> > I would have hoped it would be more lopsided, but I guess the supremes
> > are political too. Far left wingers need to be replaced. We have a lot
> > to do between now and Nov.
>
> What's disappointing is that they didn't go further than just striking
> down the handgun ban and make it more clear what can and can't be regulated.
>
> The D.C. law on gun ownership of machine guns still stands, and they
> classify "machine guns," as "any gun "which shoots, is designed to
> shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot
> semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading." This
> includes a lot of pistols, but revolvers will now be allowed, which is
> fine. So now the NRA will be fighting for changing the machine gun
> classification to exclude semi-automatic pistols.
>
> The neo-cons and the NRA have long opposed background checks on gun
> sales at gun shows preferring to allow criminals and mentally disturbed
> individuals to buy guns. Both McCain and Obama oppose unregulated gun
> show sales. The neo-cons have long favored sales of automatic and
> semi-automatic weapons to individuals, but the court's decision didn't
> address whether or not these weapons could be regulated or not. Both
> McCain and Obama oppose the sale of automatic weapons to individuals.
>
> The NRA is touting this decision as a huge victory, but the decision
> actually allows for regulations on handgun sales that they've long
> opposed. "The gun lobby still disagrees with Mr. McCain¹s support for
> background checks for firearm sales at gun shows."
>
> It's not a liberal or conservative issue. Other than the neo-cons, both
> groups, for the most part, aren't opposed to handgun ownership by
> responsible individuals, they just want to keep handguns out of the
> hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed, two groups that the NRA
> doesn't want to deprive from ownership.

I don't want criminals or deranged individuals obtaining firearms
either. The problem is, anti-gunners want to lump us all into criminals
and deranged individuals. Why not anti-gunners become a bit more
realistic and work with the NRA instead of acting like the NRA is their
enemy. I don't want to feel threatened by anti-gunners who seems to be
after my rights as a firearm owner. It never ends does it. So the
fight goes on and we continue to be a divided nation, that will go on
too.
--

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:44:37 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>they just want to keep handguns out of the
>hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed,

How the hell do you do that?

You libs are really full of it....

If you disarm the citizens....only the criminals will have guns.

Look at Oz and England....

Tell us more about 'gun control'.

gun control is hitting what you aim at....

--

Scott in Florida

In article <go18649koatmpk191eobi8pvo4fq7lef9m@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:43:19 -0500, dbu <nospam@nospam.moc> wrote:
>
> >In article <52n764d042d8e6pob5q7fngbu9sbvf06n4@4ax.com>,
> > Scott in Florida <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...feedType=RSS&f
> >> eed
> >> Name=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/5qzoyz
> >>
> >> Liberals Lose.
> >>
> >> America Wins....
> >
> >I would have hoped it would be more lopsided, but I guess the supremes
> >are political too. Far left wingers need to be replaced. We have a lot
> >to do between now and Nov.
>
> There are a LOT of 'Republicans' that need to have their arses kicked,
> too.
>
> The Republicans have forgotten what the hell the Republican Party
> is....

They are a splinter group from the democrat party.

That is a bit of history.

The current political climate, it seems they cannot win without changing
just a bit from the conservative movement of the Reagan years. That is
what McCain is trying to do in order to be elected, I think. Remember
McCain was a Reagan Republican and learned to be flexible.

I sure as shix will not vote for an increasingly socialistic democrat
party.
--

I think you have a couple or three points wrong Steve.

I don't think any responsible person has advocated private ownership of
fully automatic guns. Semi-autos are legal and rightly so. (Course in
California only can have 10 round mags and few other things) Semi-auto's
have been around both rifles and handguns since around 1900 or so. There is
a lot less responsibility on the part of the gun owners recently than in the
preceeding 90 or so years that has caused all the mania about "assault
weapons" and machine guns on the street. Hell, kids years ago were killing
each other with guns made of pipe and a clothes pin! (zipguns)

So responsible people aren't the problem, my guns aren''t the problem -
people without intelligence are the problem.

I am hoping this law wakes up the folks in Sacramento that mandate I must
have my guns in the safe or locked up, not available for my use ((legally
anyhow)) for defense.

Proper training would go a long way but then the liberals would think we're
training killers I bet. Shooting is a fun sport. (we had a rifle team in
HS even in California in the 50's)

By the way, I am 70 - And probably get, even with 10 round magazines,
something like 60 rounds minute from my 9mm - probably 15 or so more with
the standard magzaines (15 round) that came with it in the 60's. So
magazine size is BS.

Ron in Ca


"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:U4U8k.34$cn7.12@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
> dbu wrote:
>> In article <52n764d042d8e6pob5q7fngbu9sbvf06n4@4ax.com>,
>> Scott in Florida <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...dType=RSS&feed
>>> Name=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5qzoyz
>>>
>>> Liberals Lose.
>>>
>>> America Wins....
>>
>> I would have hoped it would be more lopsided, but I guess the supremes
>> are political too. Far left wingers need to be replaced. We have a lot
>> to do between now and Nov.
>
> What's disappointing is that they didn't go further than just striking
> down the handgun ban and make it more clear what can and can't be
> regulated.
>
> The D.C. law on gun ownership of machine guns still stands, and they
> classify "machine guns," as "any gun "which shoots, is designed to shoot,
> or can be readily converted or restored to shoot semiautomatically, more
> than 12 shots without manual reloading." This includes a lot of pistols,
> but revolvers will now be allowed, which is fine. So now the NRA will be
> fighting for changing the machine gun classification to exclude
> semi-automatic pistols.
>
> The neo-cons and the NRA have long opposed background checks on gun sales
> at gun shows preferring to allow criminals and mentally disturbed
> individuals to buy guns. Both McCain and Obama oppose unregulated gun show
> sales. The neo-cons have long favored sales of automatic and
> semi-automatic weapons to individuals, but the court's decision didn't
> address whether or not these weapons could be regulated or not. Both
> McCain and Obama oppose the sale of automatic weapons to individuals.
>
> The NRA is touting this decision as a huge victory, but the decision
> actually allows for regulations on handgun sales that they've long
> opposed. "The gun lobby still disagrees with Mr. McCain’s support for
> background checks for firearm sales at gun shows."
>
> It's not a liberal or conservative issue. Other than the neo-cons, both
> groups, for the most part, aren't opposed to handgun ownership by
> responsible individuals, they just want to keep handguns out of the hands
> of criminals and the mentally disturbed, two groups that the NRA doesn't
> want to deprive from ownership.
>

"dbu" <nospam@nospam.moc> wrote in message
news:nospam-532224.16585926062008@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <U4U8k.34$cn7.12@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> It's not a liberal or conservative issue. Other than the neo-cons, both
>> groups, for the most part, aren't opposed to handgun ownership by
>> responsible individuals, they just want to keep handguns out of the
>> hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed, two groups that the NRA
>> doesn't want to deprive from ownership.
>
> I don't want criminals or deranged individuals obtaining firearms
> either. The problem is, anti-gunners want to lump us all into criminals
> and deranged individuals.

And now you've gone & lumped all "anti-gunners" - which is rather a misnomer
in many cases - into one category. SMS was correct: most people (whether
they personally understand the lure of owning firearms or not) want stricter
laws - ones which are upheld - regarding the sale of guns, but don't want to
infringe on the rights of law-abiding people.

Cathy




Why not anti-gunners become a bit more
> realistic and work with the NRA instead of acting like the NRA is their
> enemy. I don't want to feel threatened by anti-gunners who seems to be
> after my rights as a firearm owner. It never ends does it. So the
> fight goes on and we continue to be a divided nation, that will go on
> too.
> --
>
>
>
>

dbu wrote:

> I don't want criminals or deranged individuals obtaining firearms
> either.

But the criminals and deranged individual buy them at gun shows
_because_ there is no background check. Why should gun shows be exempt
from the background checks that are required at regular gun stores?

I can't imagine what the upside is for the NRA in opposing background
checks for gun purchases at gun shows, but not opposing them at gun stores.

It's a shame what happened to the NRA, turning from a responsible
organization that promoted marksmenship, hunting, gun safety education,
conservation, and sport shooting into a political organization taken
over by the neo-cons to promote the ownership of automatic weapons that
have nothing to do with any of this.