WHITE HOUSE CONTINUES ATTACK ON SENSIBLE GUN LAWS:
NOMINATES "MACHINE GUN SAMMY" TO THE SUPREME COURT


A Supreme Court nominee who would strike down the federal ban on machine guns?!

I guess we shouldn't have been surprised from this White House. The same White House that just last week gave special legal protection to the gun industry, that refuses to bar terrorists from buying guns, and that broke a campaign promise and put Uzis and AK-47s back on America's city streets.

And in the midst of all of their other problems, they nominate "Machine Gun Sammy" to the highest bench in the land!

In 1996, when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns, Judge Samuel Alito dissented. Yes, he voted to loosen the restrictions on machine guns.

Judge Alito's ludicrous machine gun decision is bad enough. But it also indicates that if he were on the Supreme Court, he would attempt to deprive Congress of the power to pass other laws to protect Americans from gun violence.

Judge Alito's decision reeks of right wing judicial activism — a willingness to concoct bizarre readings of the Constitution in order to strike down reasonable laws with which he disagrees and to neuter the ability of the people's representatives to enact sensible gun legislation.

We face this kind of radical judicial activism because reasonableness has taken a flying leap in Washington. Why? Because the White House has once again caved in to special interests, like the NRA, and other radical wings of the party — and continues to lead the country down a path that is less secure and less civil.

.................................................. .................................................. .....

Making machine gun's more accessible will help the 'war on terror? Hmmmm. I seriously hope he didn't vote to loosen restrictions on machine guns.

But don't you know? It is SO MUCH EASIER to make hamburger out of those rabbits and squirrels when they are "pre-tenderized" by the rapid-fire power of an uzi or AK-47?? Think of all the wear and tear hunting Americans will save on their valuable meat-grinding equipment!!



Before you RWWs go off on an attack, I'm a registered gun owner myself, and fully support the right to bear arms. However, IMO, the NRA has overreached their usefullness and has gone way too far in some of the legislation they are pushing.

But Bush is so evil, don't you need that Uzi to defend yourself from his evilness when all the big, bad RWW's come knocking on your door with Karl Rove running point?

But Bush is so evil, don't you need that Uzi to defend yourself from his evilness when all the big, bad RWW's come knocking on your door with Karl Rove running point?

No thoughts on loosened machine gun laws?

Card Carrying NRA member...you know where I stand. I've got a fully auto M4 to prove it (pre-ban).

No thoughts on loosened machine gun laws?Heck you never know. Somebody like Charles Rangle or even Hillary might get in and then we might need them.:rolleyes:

Heck you never know. Somebody like Charles Rangle or even Hillary might get in and then we might need them.:rolleyes:

No intelligent thoughts? :)

I would but you would just call me a NRA whacko...extremist...nutjob...or something else.

Let's just put it this way. The terrorists on 9/11 used airplanes...are we gonna ban airplanes? You gonna tell John Travolta to turn in his 707?

No intelligent thoughts? :)Guns don't kill, people do.

I would like to think that our country will never be invaded. The thought of 250,000 million people being able to defend themselves should act as a pretty good deterrent.

Let's just put it this way. The terrorists on 9/11 used airplanes...are we gonna ban airplanes? You gonna tell John Travolta to turn in his 707?In Oklahoma City, I believe it was a UHAUL. We should ban all UHAULs while we're at it.

Hi Guys

You have to keep your right to a machine gun, a .50 caliber or 20 pounder if you want one, once you start banning things it will be the thin end of the wedge, pretty soon you will end up like me in the U.K. with guns almost banned alltogether.

I am not allowd a handgun, I am not allowd more than a three shot shotgun, I have to ask for permission to buy any gun and show a reason why I NEED it, I am restricted to a how much ammonition I can buy. Here you are also not allowd to have a centerfire rifle for hunting untill you have had five years experiance in using one on a target range.

You guys need to elect "Machine Gun Sammy" to office and a hundred more like him or you will end up living in a police state.

Regards

Dereck

i can find a million things in my house to kill someone, not included the guns.

also if every kid in school had a gun there would be no shoot outs, because if a kid pulled out a gun he would have 100+ guns pointing back at him

I've never liked gun laws. Stopping citizens from buying guns is not going to stop the black market. Gun laws should solely be in regards to raised penalties when used in commission of a crime or when used recklessly.

Gun bans don't do anything except polarize people on gun issues. Make anti-gun laws useful...not the stupid ham-strung assault weapons bans and the like.

As raVeneyes inches closer and closer to the right.

Ultra Liberal.....>>>>>>.raVeneyes..center..............................Ul tra Conservative

I would but you would just call me a NRA whacko...extremist...nutjob...or something else.

Let's just put it this way. The terrorists on 9/11 used airplanes...are we gonna ban airplanes? You gonna tell John Travolta to turn in his 707?

Don't assume such things; It really depends on what you say. I am not anti guns entirely. But I do question why people need such extremes like a .50 caliber rifle that can pierce an armored vehicle from a mile away. Sure they look impressive and firing one gives you a feeling of euphoria, but do we really need them in the hands of average Joe citizen? I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but a line has to be drawn when dealing with such deadly weapons. Mega Billionaires such as Bill Gates could afford to buy if he wanted to a small yield nuke from the former USSR. Should he be allowed?

And you're absolutely right on the airplane anology.

Hi Guys

You have to keep your right to a machine gun, a .50 caliber or 20 pounder if you want one, once you start banning things it will be the thin end of the wedge, pretty soon you will end up like me in the U.K. with guns almost banned alltogether.

I am not allowd a handgun, I am not allowd more than a three shot shotgun, I have to ask for permission to buy any gun and show a reason why I NEED it, I am restricted to a how much ammonition I can buy. Here you are also not allowd to have a centerfire rifle for hunting untill you have had five years experiance in using one on a target range.

You guys need to elect "Machine Gun Sammy" to office and a hundred more like him or you will end up living in a police state.

Regards

Dereck

The UK also has far fewer gun related deaths and gun related crimes then the USA.

The UK also has far fewer gun related deaths and gun related crimes then the USA.

To quote Robin Williams: In England, the police don't have a gun, and you don't have a gun. So it's: "Stop! Or I'll stay 'Stop' again!"

Gun laws are nothing more than attempts by the left to take away our rights as Americans to defend ourselves and our homes. They start with examples like banning assault weapons, which on the surface doesn't seem unreasonable. I mean, just like Johnny said, who's gonna use an Uzi on a rabbit or squirrel? But then it gets easier to pass the next gun law. Before you know it, somebody's out there claiming that 9mm pistols are too powerful and we don't really need anything hotter than a .22 bolt-action single-shot rifle. And then they pass the law that says you can only keep one round of ammo in your house at a time.

It's a slippery slope that's driven much by targeted emotion-twisting. It's easy for the left to produce examples of people killed the day after the law would have been passed - as though the passing of the law would suddenly have caused the wacko who used it to pause and say "Hmmm. They just passed this law. I guess I better reign in my psychosis and not go on a rampage tomorrow or I might not be able to legally buy another one. I mean, I know I obtained this Mac-10 on the black market, but man, it looks like they're serious now. I think I'll go turn in all my Tech-9's to the police."

Guns don't kill, people do.

I would like to think that our country will never be invaded. The thought of 250,000 million people being able to defend themselves should act as a pretty good deterrent.

Amen, but we have the worlds best trained, technically advanced, supplied and mobile army in the world as a deterrent.

But I do question why people need such extremes like a .50 caliber rifle that can pierce an armored vehicle from a mile away. Sure they look impressive and firing one gives you a feeling of euphoria, but do we really need them in the hands of average Joe citizen? I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but a line has to be drawn when dealing with such deadly weapons. Mega Billionaires such as Bill Gates could afford to buy if he wanted to a small yield nuke from the former USSR. Should he be allowed?

Why do people need such extremes as a hand made car capable of doing 0-120 in under four seconds...top speed somewhere in the 200 mph range...after all, you can only do 75-85 on a public highway. Sure it looks impressive and driving one gives you a feeling of euphoria, but do we really need them in the hands of average Joe citizen?

Mega billionaires such as Bill Gates could afford to buy re-tooled versions of these cars capable of even grater numbers. Should he be allowed?

I don't know why I've always wanted one of the 50 cal cannons out of a A-10 Warthog or one of the automated radar guided machine gun defense turrets they use on aircraft carriers capable of putting up a wall of lead three miles wide only separated by 1/4 of an inch... Some days I do think that if I had the money I might buy something like that though...they're just that freeking cool.

I'm not inching anywhere Bryan...I've always been against current gun control. I'm all for *sensible* gun control laws (like not being able to buy a gun if you're a convicted violent criminal and a sensible waiting period on gun purchases with a background check...heck I'd even accept a mental competency test...)... The problem is gun bans will never have any teeth. They can't take away the guns of people who already have them (pre-ban weapons), so it's not like it gives law enforcement an advantage in being able to instantly know someone's breaking the law having one in their possession.

To quote Robin Williams: In England, the police don't have a gun, and you don't have a gun. So it's: "Stop! Or I'll stay 'Stop' again!"

Gun laws are nothing more than attempts by the left to take away our rights as Americans to defend ourselves and our homes. They start with examples like banning assault weapons, which on the surface doesn't seem unreasonable. I mean, just like Johnny said, who's gonna use an Uzi on a rabbit or squirrel? But then it gets easier to pass the next gun law. Before you know it, somebody's out there claiming that 9mm pistols are too powerful and we don't really need anything hotter than a .22 bolt-action single-shot rifle. And then they pass the law that says you can only keep one round of ammo in your house at a time.

It's a slippery slope that's driven much by targeted emotion-twisting. It's easy for the left to produce examples of people killed the day after the law would have been passed - as though the passing of the law would suddenly have caused the wacko who used it to pause and say "Hmmm. They just passed this law. I guess I better reign in my psychosis and not go on a rampage tomorrow or I might not be able to legally buy another one. I mean, I know I obtained this Mac-10 on the black market, but man, it looks like they're serious now. I think I'll go turn in all my Tech-9's to the police."

I can't disagree with you, except there has to be a line drawn so it doesn’t get out of hand going the opposite way. As you said, if they ban assault rifles, next it will be 9mm's, till we end up with little 6 year old Johnny being arrested for having a sling shot. But not having any sort of control can end with little 6 year old Johnny carrying an assault rifle.

I can't disagree with you, except there has to be a line drawn so it doesn’t get out of hand going the opposite way. As you said, if they ban assault rifles, next it will be 9mm's, till we end up with little 6 year old Johnny being arrested for having a sling shot. But not having any sort of control can end with little 6 year old Johnny carrying an assault rifle.

Little 6 year old Johnny *can* be arrested in the state of Pennsylvania for having a sling shot or an air rifle. Both are considered guns by state law, and you must have a gun license to purchase, transport, own, or use a BB Gun or sling shot.

Why do people need such extremes as a hand made car capable of doing 0-120 in under four seconds...top speed somewhere in the 200 mph range...after all, you can only do 75-85 on a public highway. Sure it looks impressive and driving one gives you a feeling of euphoria, but do we really need them in the hands of average Joe citizen?.

Mega billionaires such as Bill Gates could afford to buy re-tooled versions of these cars capable of even grater numbers. Should he be allowed?

I don't know why I've always wanted one of the 50 cal cannons out of a A-10 Warthog or one of the automated radar guided machine gun defense turrets they use on aircraft carriers capable of putting up a wall of lead three miles wide only separated by 1/4 of an inch... Some days I do think that if I had the money I might buy something like that though...they're just that freeking cool.

I'm not inching anywhere Bryan...I've always been against current gun control. I'm all for *sensible* gun control laws (like not being able to buy a gun if you're a convicted violent criminal and a sensible waiting period on gun purchases with a background check...heck I'd even accept a mental competency test...)... The problem is gun bans will never have any teeth. They can't take away the guns of people who already have them (pre-ban weapons), so it's not like it gives law enforcement an advantage in being able to instantly know someone's breaking the law having one in their possession.

A car (most basic) is made to take you places. A gun (most basic) is made to kill. There is a difference.

I agree on having sensible gun laws, but an anti-missile turret isn't sensible unless you expect missiles to bombard your place of residence. :)

Little 6 year old Johnny *can* be arrested in the state of Pennsylvania for having a sling shot or an air rifle. Both are considered guns by state law, and you must have a gun license to purchase, transport, own, or use a BB Gun or sling shot.

Again, as you said 'sensible' is the key word in gun laws.

Has Fossten hi-jacked Raveneyes account?

Again, as you said 'sensible' is the key word in gun laws.

Has Fossten hi-jacked Raveneyes account?

In my view, the sensible thing is: WHO gets to decide what the law means as far as our weapons are concerned? I'd rather have a judge who erred on the cautious side of preserving our rights as opposed to the opposite, a judge who sees it as his personal crusade from Allah or whatever that guns have to be removed from this country.

Read Alito's dissents: He follows the law carefully. He is far from an activist judge. This Constitutional debate is more about rewriting the constitution than it's about radical right-wingers vs. (radical) moderate libs.

Fair enough Fossten, I'll try to find it and read up.

Hi 95DevilleNS

We do have less gun crime than you guys but we also have less people, if everyone in Britain had a gun we would still have less gun crime than you guys, it's all to do with society's attitude here. If you ever watched Michael Moore's "bowling for Colombine" in it he states that Canada has at many guns as the US but a fraction of the gun crime.

By 95DevilleNS:

......but we have the worlds best trained, technically advanced, supplied and mobile army in the world as a deterrent..

At the risk of stirring up a hornets nest , you do have the worlds most technically advanced, supplied and mobile army but you DO NOT have the worlds best trained army.

Regards

Dereck

Hi 95DevilleNS

We do have less gun crime than you guys but we also have less people, if everyone in Britain had a gun we would still have less gun crime than you guys, it's all to do with society's attitude here. If you ever watched Michael Moore's "bowling for Colombine" in it he states that Canada has at many guns as the US but a fraction of the gun crime.

.

At the risk of stirring up a hornets nest , you do have the worlds most technically advanced, supplied and mobile army but you DO NOT have the worlds best trained army.

Regards

Dereck

Ya, you're right on the 'BEST TRAINED' part. It was hubris for me to say that.

If you ever watched Michael Moore's "bowling for Colombine" in it he states that Canada has at many guns as the US but a fraction of the gun crime.

True, but he omits the fact that Canadians also have only a fraction of the freedom we have here.

I LOVE guns and I LOVE politicians who LOVE guns, NRA for life... If you don't like guns then MOVE to another country.

Typical liberal personal attacks:

:thread:

Typical liberal personal attacks:


What????

At the risk of stirring up a hornets nest , you do have the worlds most technically advanced, supplied and mobile army but you DO NOT have the worlds best trained army.

Regards

Dereck

Hubris aside...yes we do! :F :biggrin:

Gun laws are not "sensible", they're illogical. Criminals don;t obay the law and will get them anyway. It's about time a REAL judge be appointed and strike-dwon these pussy laws...

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

What????

Sigh. I'm referring to the name-calling pejorative nature of this thread and its sorry title.

Hubris aside...yes we do! :F :biggrin:

Hi Freefaller

So you picked up the thrown gauntlet :biggrin:

We are both on the same side so I am not going to argue with you :)

Take care dude

Dereck

Sigh. I'm referring to the name-calling pejorative nature of this thread and its sorry title.

It's a legitimate debate when presenting a candidate for the high court. Gun control is a national issue...one they will have to make a decision on...it's not a personal attack.

I think the French are better trained fighting machines than both the Brits and the Americans.

It's a legitimate debate when presenting a candidate for the high court. Gun control is a national issue...one they will have to make a decision on...it's not a personal attack.

A debate consists of arguing ideas. Name-calling is a personal attack.

Raveneyes' typical response:

Nuh-uh! He didn't call him Machine-gun Sammy! You just imagined it!

[QUOTE=MonsterMark]Guns don't kill, people do.QUOTE]


If guns kill people, i can blame spelling errors on my pencil: Larry the Cable Guy.

A debate consists of arguing ideas. Name-calling is a personal attack.

Raveneyes' typical response:

Nuh-uh! He didn't call him Machine-gun Sammy! You just imagined it!

No, my response (because I don't really have typical responses)...is:

You have such a complex duality it hurts to discuss anything with you. 'Machine Gun Sammy'...a comic nickname for someone who supports guns...is far from name calling, and the grand majority of the article and debate on the topic has been very well mannered.

Why must you bring everything down to your level? Even this? Something most everyone agrees on here?

It's not the thread that sucks, it's you.

No, my response (because I don't really have typical responses)...is:

blah blah blah...personal attack... 'Machine Gun Sammy'...a comic nickname for someone who supports guns...is far from name calling...blah blah blah...personal attack...



I would like to hear everyone weigh in on this. Is calling someone a name considered name-calling?

Raveneyes doesn't think so.

Totally irrational. That was EXACTLY the response I expected: You denied the claim in the FACE of actual facts, then attacked me personally. It's become your trademark.

I would like to hear everyone weigh in on this. Is calling someone a name considered name-calling?

Raveneyes doesn't think so.

Totally irrational. That was EXACTLY the response I expected: You denied the claim in the FACE of actual facts, then attacked me personally. It's become your trademark.

Of course, it is only name calling when Republicans do it. If Democrats do it, it's "clever." Just ask any Liberal.

Of course, it is only name calling when Republicans do it. If Democrats do it, it's "clever." Just ask any Liberal.True. This tactic is not new, it has just been adopted as the left's new weapon. Attach a nickname that stigmatizes that individual and let the press, in all its complicity, create 5 second soundbites that will reasonate with joe blow voter. He won't actually know the issue of why he/she doesn't like the person. Nice subliminal strategy. Once again, mean-spiritedness comes from the left.

I would like to hear everyone weigh in on this. Is calling someone a name considered name-calling?

blah blah blah...Personal attack...blah blah blah

It's become your TRADEMARK

I think the French are better trained fighting machines than both the Brits and the Americans.

Hi MonsterMark

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it is the most unbelievable mind numbing nonsense I have ever heard :biggrin:

Regards

Dereck

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it is the most unbelievable mind numbing nonsense I have ever heardThe question is: How long did the hairs on the back of your neck get? LOL.