In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

hiJackBailey Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 3:04 PM
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Period. " it's so simple only a liberal could misunderstand. no permits, not taxes, no restrictions, no questions. sorry for those who would want something different. it was not written in an ambiguous fashion and it was not written to confuse. we have a right to free speech but there is no restriction or punishment until that speech is made such as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. if there is a fire in a crowded theater you have humane duty to alert the persons in danger. if you do not, you endanger others.the 2nd amendment does not give one the right to fire a gun without cause or caution.
hiJackBailey Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 3:07 PM
imposing preemptive action on gun ownership is ENTIRELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. the framers knew it would be a heated issue. that's why its the 2nd amendment and written so clearly. ownership and carry of firearms is not a federal issue and it is not a state issue, it is solely granted to the people.

Steve of CA wrote: Personally I do not own a gun and would not feel safer if I had one, but I do not have a problem with law abiding people buying guns. That being the case, I have to ask of Mr. Ransom and others here, what controls, if any, do you favor over the purchase and use of weapons, including semi-automatic weapons such as the one used by the killer in Aurora? Or do you think we have too much gun control with the laws we have now? - The American Solution: Reach for the Guns

Dear Steve,...