JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
3,753
Reactions
649
I love how the Brady Bunch is now trying to spin the McDonald Decision as some sort of win for gun control. :s0114:

In its decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect communities from gun violence.



The Court has rejected the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are permissible.



The Brady Center, joined by several national law enforcement groups, filed a friend of the court brief urging the Court to interpret the Second Amendment to allow for “reasonable” gun laws.

In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court determined that the Second Amendment applies to state and local laws.
 
I think most of us would agree with reasonable regulation. No, the guy that can not control his temper and beats his wife kids should not own a gun. I happen to agree with the domestic violence restriction. And no, a convicted murderer or gang banger released on parole should not own a gun.

The problem is that the Brady Bunch and I do not agree on what constitutes reasonable regulation. They will say that restricting any weapon other than a slingshot is reasonable. And limit the rubber bands on it to no more that two inches.
 
I think most of us would agree with reasonable regulation. No, the guy that can not control his temper and beats his wife kids should not own a gun. I happen to agree with the domestic violence restriction. And no, a convicted murderer or gang banger released on parole should not own a gun.

The problem is that the Brady Bunch and I do not agree on what constitutes reasonable regulation. They will say that restricting any weapon other than a slingshot is reasonable. And limit the rubber bands on it to no more that two inches.

+1 It's all in the definition of reasonable and for the Brady Bunch reasonable means no guns for anyone other than LEO or military.
 
I agree in reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. I just seem to have a different idea of what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

I believe the only reasonable restriction is on the person, not the firearm. In other words, I believe that a person convicted of a legitimate felony by a court of law should lose the right to own firearms, unless that right is reinstated. I do not believe the restriction of any weapon to a law abiding citizen is "reasonable".
 
I agree in reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. I just seem to have a different idea of what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

I believe the only reasonable restriction is on the person, not the firearm. In other words, I believe that a person convicted of a legitimate felony by a court of law should lose the right to own firearms, unless that right is reinstated. I do not believe the restriction of any weapon to a law abiding citizen is "reasonable".


I can agree with this. :s0155:
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top