DaVinci

Nonsense.... Again, don't blame me for your failure of understanding.

Yes, because liberals always take the high road? http://earthhopenetwork.net/Nazi_Bush.htm

With parental supervision.... Whatever age the parents see fit. Without, 18. You can vote and die for the US, you should be allowed to drink. You could make things more difficult to outlaw ANY driving if you have been drinking. I'd be OK with that.

False, don't blame me that you didn't pay attention to my posts and only remember what you *think* was written. And I don't complain just about *my* rights. I complain about EVERY innocent persons rights you want to trample on.....

Search better, I have covered this before. Just because you don't have good search skills does not mean it is not there.

No, it started because a bunch of media whores saw an opportunity to get into the limelight. It was further fueled by a bunch of people who dislike the stand your ground law and then further advanced by people who see race in everything. If you think for a second that that police were not investigating.... Well.... I don't know what to tell you. Just look at the petitions.... They wanted an investigation and CHARGES brought. Not just an investigation. It seems that some people are not going to be happy unless charges are brought and see anything less as the police 'doing nothing'

And compromise is what passed those bills that gave us the trillion dollar deficit. You somehow think that the two parties are going to work together to slash entitlement spending and raise taxes?

And is the story about the two black 16 year olds lighting the 13 year old white kid also a racist crime?

That is not the school Trayvon went to.... Not even the same State.

Not really. If he felt he was in danger, then his actions could be justified under the law.

Yes, a lot of black racists have jumped before looking on this one. See, racism works BOTH ways.

And there are many more facts than what you stated. * Zimmerman was found bleeding. *Trayvons Father stated that he didn't think the cries for help were from his son. *The dispatcher never ordered Zimmerman to not follow. They said "You don't have to do that sir". That is a far cry from an 'order' * Dispatchers do not have any legal authority to give an order. * Treyvon was suspended for school for 5-10 days. the details have not be released and his family;s lawyer is working to prevent that information from being released. So maybe both sides are talking before they know the facts?

Yeah, not made up.... Blood from the nose and the back of his head. http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

Do a search, I have covered this before.

Great, so do I.... Now, I want it to be in a way that does not limit the rights of a citizen and that can't be used against an honest citizen. You don't care about limiting any others rights as long as you get what you want. I don't think stepping on the rights of 99% of the people to try and catch 1% is worth it. That thought is in your head, not in anything I have ever written.

And the legal definition can change.... The original definition did not include ages, only those willing to stand up and defend. The INTENT of the Founding Fathers is what is important. Otherwise the internet should not be protected by free speech and your computer should not be protected by the 4th. Again, please find ONE quote or comment from a Founding Father (you know, the ones that actually created the govt) that says an individual should not have the right to keep and bear arms. I have asked you for this several times and you have failed to provide one. Instead you try to hide behind interpretations. When I show you that the current legal system does not agree with you.... You try to say that it can change. Again, ONE quote from a Founding Father.... ONE!!!

I already said that...... Maybe you should READ a post before you reply? "You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. " But you still continue to tap dance around the issue. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

I personally think that would be a good thing.

There is not much difference between Romney and Obama. And that is what Santorum is saying. Romney is at least AS liberal if not more liberal than Obama. The only difference is Romney is talking the conservative talk right now. His history shows he is liberal. I think Romney would be a worse President than Obama in many ways. With Obama you know he is a liberal and will push liberal causes. With Romney you have a guy that says one thing and will do another. The ONLY upside to Romney is he is more qualified from a financial aspect. But that is where the upside stops. Personally, if it is Romney vs Obama...... I am not even sure I'll vote in that race. A guy that signed an assault weapons ban... does not represent me. A guy that signed a HC system into law... does not represent me. A guy that is a multi millionaire... does not represent me. I find it AMAZING that an conservative actually has bought into Romney claiming to be a conservative... His history shows otherwise. And Romney is not going to be able to run a very good campaign. On the HC law.... In a debate with Obama: R: When I become President, I will stop this HC law O: I find your aversion to this law to be strange, it was modeled after the one YOU signed into law. Point to Obama. On the 2nd: R: I support the 2nd Amendment. O: You are on record saying it is outdated and you signed an AWB into law. Point to Obama. On taxes: R: The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes, the bottom 50 % pay no federal taxes and this cant stand. O: Well, you are the top 1%, so I can see how you don't want to pay more taxes..... Point to Obama. Romney will be toast.

Ah, but there are anti gun people that only think the LEO's and military should be allowed a weapon. There are very few if any pro gun folks that want it mandatory for everyone to walk around armed.

Yes, and murder is a crime. So work on the crime, not the object. And they are already prohibited by the GCA of 1968. Again 99% of gun owners are no problem. Maybe you should focus on things that will affect that 1% and not the 99% that are not the problem?

Yeah, the opinions of the folks that founded the Country, debated the freedoms, wrote and voted on the founding documents have no clue huh? Seem to have missed the SC ruling in Heller huh? The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. It says 'males' but laws have shown that women have the same rights as males (see the 19th).. Unless you want to claim women don't count? But it also goes on to say "the people", "citizens" (yes illegals would not count), and it says "individuals". Scalia asserted in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection. And "But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home." Now, if you disagree... maybe you should take that up with Scalia. But I would say a SC ruling trumps your personal opinion.

I think that honest people should be held only to the 2nd Amendment. I think the issue is keeping guns from the hands of criminals. History has shown that criminals don't follow laws and passing more gun laws just hurt honest citizens. So, instead of focusing on the guns... focus on the criminals.

You have said you support registration like people do with a car. That is not free. You have said you support mental screenings for people who want to and who own guns... Those are also not free. You have said you support a license like a drivers license... Those are not free. You did mention free NICS checks, but most of your other opinions have a price tag attached. Still waiting for you to answer why you think it is fine to need an ID to buy a gun but not to vote. Answer that first and then I'll answer your question.

The big deal to me is this... Pro gun folks like guns and if you want one think you should get one. If you don't want one, they think you don't have to get one. Anti gun folks think no one should have a gun. One steps on someone else's rights, the other lets people make their own choices. BOTH don't want criminals to use them: The pro gun folks know that the object is not the problem, it is the actions of the criminal and regulating the object will do nothing but harass the lawful owners. Anti's for the most part want to regulate the object. Even when it has been shown to not really work (war on drugs, Mexico's gun problem).