Only thing that matters to me. Honestly don't care 'why' just glad to see some sticking to their guns and not rolling over to play dead on such issues.
Fishy? I think it makes it harder for you to scream that Bush wants to Marshall law the United States of American if they want you to keep your guns. (Its hard to Marshall law a country when one in every two homes has a gun)
I take it you did not read the article? Cheney did not go with the Bush stance, the reason I could kiss him
This second amendement is a problem because it is behond a simple issue. Or you can own a gun because it is as dangerous as car or a chain saw OR it is not. Lots of people believe that it's not the gun which is dangerous but the owner himself. And I tend to agree. Someone could kill somebody easily with a car or a chain saw. Is a car or a chain saw prohibited? No. But if I'm responsible with my car , my chain saw and my gun, why can't I own a nuclear bomb? I won't kill anyone with it, or with my car, or with my chain saw... SO where can we put the limit? The limit where a nuclear bomb is dangeros but not the gun? America is a new country where everything has to be done yet. While Belgium made school mandatory below 16y/o in 1918, you could't go to school safely in America if you were black in 1960. It is improving though but still have years to catch up... It's the country of free speech, unless you talk to loudly in a Kerry's convention, it's the country with justice for all, unless you are illegally in the country, it's the country of freedom, unless you're gay.. I had a dream, that one day, America will be the country with liberty, and justice for all...
Thanks for posting. It's good to see someone in Washington standing up for honest Americans. I don't get that part either.
That's alright, as cody said - it's not the gun, but the man that is the problem.you could kill a sleeping man with your bare hands and a pillow. Does that mean they will be banned from use? Cheney - of all people LOL. I guess he's still thinking about that hunting mishap
Ok, let me explain. An illegal alien is working night shift as a security guy. There is a robbery. He does what his suppose to do for his job. He get killed. While justice worked for him and his family at the first place, when the killer appealed the decision, the second trial gave him reason. Therefore, if you plan to get a bank and kill an illegal alien in the action, you're covered. So yes, he was in illegal situation. A situation that should not happen. But the justice was not for him as a victim. Do you get it now?
I agree. It's time to work on immigration at the source instead of pourring millions of $$ on a half wall....Well, W is almost out fortunately. Let's see with the next one...
I always find it curious that when a drunk driver kills someone, I don't hear anyone blaming the car. But when someone with a gun kills someone, the apparent solution is to blame the gun. Hmmmm. Which one kills more people? It is obvious that more people are killed in cars, therefore we need to ban cars. I don't know of a single situation in the USA where the banning of guns has reduced the murder rate. On the other hand, when states pass concealed carry laws. . .