[Davers]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/12/bloomberg.gun.laws/index.html?hpt=C2


The above weblink is concerning gun control. The article was posted on another forum which points out that several states have weak gun control laws that is permitting those to obtain firearms that shouldn't. Article just shows that Gun control is a waste of taxpayer's money and violates the law abiding the right to bear arms.

 

[Pawpaw Tony]

most of us know.. guns are a tool..used for good purpose in most hands ..
but for bad purpose in the wrong hands..
enjoy your guns ,fellas.better do it now..you may be outlaws before to long..
but who am i to predict the future..what will be,will be..
if you have not been a voter n the past..give it a try this time..
this is i believe possibly the most critical time in this nations history..
if you believe in one nation under god ,with liberty an justice for all.
vote an vote intelligently..
freedom depends, as our forefathers decided when they put in the 2nd,,
on the right to bear arms..
how could they ever forsee the hi tech world we live in ,now in the 21st century..

 

[kdub]

Davers -

As you most probably know, we ask members to have a short description of the link's content to be posted with the link. This is for other members who may elect to not review the link to determine what the subject is. Just having something in the thread's title is insufficient.

 

[Davers]

Davers -

As you most probably know, we ask members to have a short description of the link's content to be posted with the link. This is for other members who may elect to not review the link to determine what the subject is. Just having something in the thread's title is insufficient.

Corrected! Didn't realize the requirement. <sorry>

 

[JPaulF]

SCOTUS has indicated that some controls are legitimate, but, in MacDonald, made it perfectly clear that limitations would be scrutinized with the utmost prejudice without sufficient justification.

 

[unclepaddy]

SCOTUS has indicated that some controls are legitimate, but, in MacDonald, made it perfectly clear that limitations would be scrutinized with the utmost prejudice without sufficient justification.

Once the court is packed with Libs, this will be revisited.