obamarama

Riley wrote: How come no one has asked Obama his opinion on the recent Supreme Court decision stating that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right? Simple question. Why don't the media ask?

Because in the grand scheme of things, nobody cares about guns.

Think of how much damage the Bush administration did to privacy rights. Also, what underlying constitutional fundamental is behind Roe V. Wade? Who is against it?

We've got bigger fish to fry in this country and in the world right now. Personally I'm pro-gun as it's the final check of power between the people and gov't. If shooting is your hobby, that's great. If Obama was against Slalom Skiing then I'd still vote for him because I realize there is more at stake next Tuesday than my hobby or home defense fantasy.

M3Fan wrote: Because in the grand scheme of things, nobody cares about guns. Think of how much damage the Bush administration did to privacy rights. Also, what underlying constitutional fundamental is behind Roe V. Wade? Who is against it? I'd still vote for him because I realize there is more at stake next Tuesday than my hobby or home defense fantasy.

Living in a fantasy world, under the impression that the government will defend his home so he has no need....I rest my case, lost cause. And to think, I fought in a war to allow these types of thinkers to give away their rights which I fought to defend, go figure. At least we can agree on our favorite boats, for now.    How ironic, I just noticed that he lives in LIBERTYVILLE

Ken,

Thanks for fighting for my freedom, just like the guy I am voting for!

Joel,

Perhaps terrorists were responsible for the loss of some rights not Bush directly? Many of those changes were more a result of maintaining national security IMHO.

Some day in the distant future when they write "The Rise and Fall of America" the chapter on the fall will be about my generation, the baby boomers.

Gary S wrote: Some day in the distant future when they write "The Rise and Fall of America" the chapter on the fall will be about my generation, the baby boomers.

Sometimes kinda scary ain't it Gary....I feel you are so right.

john

eric lavine wrote: the three "e"s, economy, energy, environment...be optimistic, it could turn out to be the best times we will ever have.

Eric, what about GUNS!!!

Seriously though, I feel blue skies are ahead as well.

Morfoot wrote: Gee, if a goverment were in place 250 years ago that didn't allow the right to bear arms in the first place then I'd guess we'd all be paying taxes to the queen and we'd all be speaking with a "Heavy" british accent. ...No offense to those across the pond.

I don't believe we need gun control and fire arms for sport and or protection are a right but is there not a little room for control when an 8 year old is allowed to fire an UZI sub machine gun at a gun fair resulting in his death. I just don't understand how this is possible.

Morfoot wrote: Gee, if a goverment were in place 250 years ago that didn't allow the right to bear arms in the first place then I'd guess we'd all be paying taxes to the queen and we'd all be speaking with a "Heavy" british accent. ...No offense to those across the pond.

This is a huge stretch.

M3Fan wrote: Riley wrote: There is no constitutional fundamental behind RvW. "According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

I won't state my opinion as to who should be president, or whether abortion should or should not be legal.

But, I will say that of all the Constitutional opininions I have read, and I have read a lot of them, Roe v. Wade is one of the weakest I have read in terms of Constitutional support for the opinion handed down. It is a creative piece of lawyering and judicial opinion, but it is a real stretch to find constitutional support for the decision.

It is an opinion handed down about a very controversial topic in this country; it is an opinion in which the Supreme Court "reached" at best for a constitutional argument to support its opinion; and that is why it continues to be debated 35 years after that decision.

In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson declared that separate but equal school systems were supported by the Consitution. It was not until 1954 that Brown v. Board of education overturned that ruling.

Similarly, it would not suprise me at all if some day Roe v. Wade is overturned on grounds that it is not supported by the constitution. That is not to say that abortion could not be legal in this country. It is only to say that given the right mix in the Supreme Court, and the right case put before the Court, the decision could easily be overturned.

BKH

Boy....who you calling Boy?

Wow, I've been out all day and I hoped this topic wasn't turned around or dead. Thanks to Riley, Tim, Hollywood and others the common sense does prevail, though as others have said, none was exercised at that gun fair. Things like that are why they continually try to legislate our guns rights away when as it was aptly put, common sense was not used at all. Such a sad thing to have happen, but a new law will never prevent things like that.
On a better note, the cartoon above is so appropriate right now.

Well here is my take:

1. There is not an enviroment crisis. There is a re-use crisis. Look at all of the stuff we throw away. If all of that plastic was recycled we would not be filling the ground with trash.

I'm not a tree hugger but my wife and I recycle just about everything. We put about 1/2 of a 35 gallon trash can out every week.

2. Money crash..stock crash: We brought it on ourselves. Look at all of the 70K wakeboard boats out there. If you don't spend within your means, this is what happens. Same with the government. If people bought boats within their means (older boats still running) then ERIC would have more business.

3. Energy: That goes with the Enviroment thing....the need to recycle and improve efficiency. Everybody wants all of these electric cars but nobody has started talking about what happens at the end of their life cycle. Just wait...the electric car battery "crisis" will be about 5 years down the road.


I bought a saturn car in 2001 when I was in college, it got 40-45mpg. Try to find a saturn today that gets that mileage??? Something is wrong there.

MarineTech wrote: Things like that are why they continually try to legislate our guns rights away when as it was aptly put, common sense was not used at all. Such a sad thing to have happen, but a new law will never prevent things like that. .

I don't want this to turn into a thread jack as we're getting off topic a bit but how does regulating weapons like an Uzi sub machine gun violate your right to protect yourself? These are weapons of war and that's where they belong. That incident happened at some sort of public fair so a law preventing their discharge WOULD have saved that kids life or if it hadn't an adult would be going to jail. As it stands now the authorities are "not Sure" if any laws have been broken, you can't see something wrong with that? Melt them all down and turn them and your 8 mpg SUV's into toasters.

Back on topic...

"BE VERY VERY AFRAID

There is really no possible way to overestimate the stupidity of some -- perhaps far too many -- of the American voters out there. There's a New York Times poll out there of early voters in Florida and Ohio -- two so-called "battleground states." Of the people who have ALREADY voted 6% in Florida and 3% in Ohio don't know who they voted for."

from Nealz Newz

Morfoot wrote: If burglar,thief, or rapist may have just a slight moment of sense in their head of the possibility of an Uzi or some other automatic weapon lighting their backside up should they proceed to invade my home then it is worth it.

This is a situation that I like to call the "home invasion fantasy". It's totally off-topic but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway. Every owner of a handgun or assult rifle who keeps it in their home dreams of this day. In the home invasion fantasy, the perp enters your home, but wakes the proud gun owner up. The proud gun owner grabs his pistol out of the safe, tells the wife everything will be OK. Then, he sneaks out of the room and has a nice wide-open shot at the perp. The home owner says something like "You feelin' LUCKY punk? Make my day!" or "Hasta la vista, baby" and pumps the perp with lead, blows the smoke out of the barrel, and hugs his family who all lovingly look at him, and the gun, and smile. I call it the home invasion fantasy because it would most likely never happen this way. You will probably not be woken up by the intruder. If you do, you will probably not get a clear shot at him. If you do, you have to be ready to pull the trigger. If you do, you have to be prepared for the consequences of that bullet from the time it leaves the barrel until the time it stops. That includes the bullet stopping in your neighbor's chest across the street. It also includes the bullet stopping in any of your kid's rooms if they are behind the perp. If you get into a hand-to-hand fight with the perp, be prepared to have your weapon used against you and your family. Also, you have to be prepared for your children to accidentally discharge the gun when you're not home. Basically, if you want to defend your home with a gun, that's great, but I would highly advise that you get professional indoor close-quarters tactical training with your weapon and forget about the home invasion fantasy.