To say the President or anyone supports anything with out it coming directly from them is personal opinion, nothing more.
Democrats freely admit their position is one of more gun control. Hillary just did it in an interview with time Russert during the convention. What was interesting about her admisssion was that she recognized the 2nd amendment rights and openly admitted that her support for gun control measures was to appease her voters. The right does the same thing as a concession on other issues. The ownership of guns are an absolute right and any conditions are unconstitutional.

Aunty M,

No one or no party wears a 'white hat' on every single issue.

My question on the protection of 2nd Amendment rights is answered like most political questions in our two major party system--Which party (Republican or Democratic) is less likely to infringe on my right to 'Keep and bare arms'? Which is the lesser of two evils?

You know RB I absolutely agree! I not only think you should be able to keep your arms but you should also be able to bare them!!!! I would never vote for a candidate that would ban tank tops

Rory,

Speaking strictly hypothetically here:

Which amendment, if you were absolutely forced to, would you choose to keep and why. First or second?

The second insures the first.

People seem to forget that our freedom was won with guns not newspapers.

King,

While that may have been true in 1776, I HIGHLY doubt that the members of the Fall City Trap & Sporting Clays Assoc. would be able to stop the might of the U.S. Military if it were "god forbid" unleashed upon its citizens today.

We fought the British back then mostly as an armed citizen militia. We got the military to fight our enemies today.

One more thing... Why do you think the first amendment is the FIRST amendment?
Could it be that the framers of the Constitution believed that this was the most important of ALL rights in order to ensure that the new FREE democratic society would survive?

4 Salt,

I agree with TK on this one.

If you forfeit your individual right to be able to protect your family, home and self with arms---you'll forfeit all other rights (1st Amendment included) in time.

Besides, when you've got a gun in your hand, people generally let you say what you want.
------------------------------------------------------------

BTW--4 Salt is a great moniker! I've never landed one, but I've got a couple of trips planned for the lower Quinault this winter...stay tuned.

4salt,

No, I think they knew the importance of diologue before they took up Arms. You forget that the armed forces are made up of citizens and would be very reluctant to use it's might against it's own. If they did 10 ,20,30 million gun toting civillians could put a serious dent in any army. We would have no trouble resupplying ourselves and they would be operating from islands under siege. They would last 6 months at most.

If you're a well-regulated militia.

The Freemen figured they could take on the US military too.........until an Apache and an Abrams showed up. Party over.

PS: just arguing for the sake of argument.

The milita was composed of private citizens with guns. Just as it would be in the future. The freeman did not have the support of the people. I doubt it would ever happen. I would hate to be a lib if it did :p

Protect your family, home and self from whom?

Criminals - Isn't that why we have police?

Government - King is right when he says that the probability of our government using the military against it's citizens is minute at best.

You know I'm not really advocating giving up your second amendment rights. I'm mostly trying to ascertain why the right defends the second so adamantly while almost never even mentioning the importance of the first?

You're kidding, right?

[/QUOTE]Protect your family, home and self from whom?

Criminals - Isn't that why we have police?

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Yep, that's right we do have police, but I see you live just outside or in the People's Republic of Seattle where you have an abundance of Law Enforcement where if someone breaks into your house at 2:00 AM you can call 911 and have an officer there 2 minutes.

Here in the some of the Rurual counties there is only one or two officers on duty after midnight and that deputy may be on another call on the other end of county and can't get to you for an hour, what do you do you tell whoever is breaking into your home, "Here take what you want, go ahead kill my me, my wife and my kids?''

I think not I know in my case there's an shotgun sitting there and if at all possible they're going to get their ass or some other part of their body full of Double OO Buckshot. Then that LEO can take his time getting here.

What's right for the Peoples Republic of Seattle is not necessarily right for the rest of the State.

Yeah, I've lost count of the number of news reports I've read of mullet-headed good ol' boys protectin' they's youngins from intruders. Damn, I miss the wild west when men was men and sheep was scared.

Oh, yeah, they knows we gots guns so they knows better than to try anythin'.

Just like that farmer that grows rutabagas to keep the wolverines away. That's why there's no wolverines on the OP.

NRA induced paranoia. GOP induced paranoia. No better way to control the masses but to instill fear, and then play the protector.

Just ask Goering:

Thats right I can buy any gun I want OTC with out any invasion of privacy. Because background checks and restrictions keep the guns out of criminals hands . I mean you see a lot of gang bangers, terrorist and cop killers using .270 bolt actions and .45/70 govt lever actions. Name any fire arm and I can have it in 24 hrs via private party and no one would know. Yep It's 100% paranoia.

Yep, you're paranoid.

No in fact the people that think they are safer restriticing type and ownership are the paranoid ones.

They won't ban my muzzleloader will they?

My supplies of deer and elk jerky would be severely curtailed if I had to hunt with a bow.

And, yes, I do know that the 1st amendment wasn't written for hunters.

Good day all, and THANK GOD that we live in a country where we can disagree and not get carted off to be "re-educated".

Hey does this mean they will warranty my clips Wow this thread took a turn I was actually just asking a question about a warranty issue....oh well.

I used to be heavy into guns and at first I was irritated by the AWB but soon came to realize is was nothing more then a political smoke screen. Since America is flooded with every type of weapon listed on the ban they were all still available to buy legally on the open market or through a gun dealer. The only thing the AWB did was to limit the importation of said assault weapons and ammo making it more expensive for the average shooter, the whole supply and demand thing. Magazine capacity was limited to 10 rounds but I can still by 30 rounders today without a problem, again the market is flooded. It limited the importation of rifles like the AK47 but it was still legal for Colt to pump out AR15’s. They both except 30 round detachable magazines and are semi auto so what is the difference. The difference is Colt is made in the US and the AWB for the most part only banned importation but not production. It was BS and did nothing except cost the target shooter more money for ammo.

If you really want to make a law that has some merit try this on for size. Colt produces an AR15 and before they sell said weapon they must first shoot a round into a test tank. This round is sent to the FBI with the serial number of said weapon. Now when there is a drive by and they pull the slug from the dead guy they can match the ballistics on there computer.

This is the part that erks me and I am not picking on Bush, this irritates me about all politicians so no F#$@ing replies about Kerry did this!!! “President Bush made a 2000 campaign pledge to support renewal of the ban. But Bush has disingenuously stood by in 2004, merely saying he'd sign it if Congress sent it to him. But leaders of the Republican-controlled Congress refuse to act on renewing the 10-year-ban first adopted in 1994.”

It is the duty of the Pres to pressure Congress on issues he wishes to pass, not just merely sit by hoping they send a bill up to him for renewal. Politicians are always trying to make themselves look good by saying one thing, when in reality they are all two faced liars. This bill could have been renewed if Bush wished it, however it was worthless to begin with.