DaVinci

http://cbs4.com/local/internet.freedom.regulation.2.1757643.html I think it is a bad idea.

But the regulations are on how you USE them.... A person without a drivers license or a pilots license can BUY and OWN a car or a plane. Also a car or a plane is not in the Bill of Rights.... Firearms are.

True, but cars, airplanes, spoons and uranium cores are not covered in the Constitution..... Just like lock picks are not. But the main factor should be to regulate the activities, not the items. There is no harm in you having a lock pick set, or someone like you having a gun.

Sorry, that was not clear to me. I am torn on it. On the one hand, she didn't seem to plan any harm. And it is possible that she really didn't know she should not have had it. On the other hand, her Country has a rule against it... She and her Countrymen have decided how they want the country to run by voting the way they have. And ignorance of the law is not an excuse. While *I* think it is stupid.... They voted (to include her) to be held to those rules and you reap what you sow. Maybe throwing the Granny in jail will sound as stupid to them as you and I and they will change the law a bit.

"Self Loading" is a correct term. It is more relevant from a historical standpoint.... It was what semi auto's were called when they were first designed and invented. The term "semi auto" came later and has been adopted and become the primary definition. And self-load·ing (sĕlfˈlōˈdĭng) adjective Automatically ejecting a shell and chambering the next round from the magazine; automatic or semiautomatic. Used of a firearm. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Fair, but some don't see skydiving as a hobby. This is how.... Some want to blame the object, some want to blame the person using the object. A gun or a lock pick set are both just tools. They do not do anything themselves. Both can be used for good, or bad depending only on the person using them. Some think guns and lock sets should be banned since they can be used by people to do bad things. I tend to think that either should be allowed and we should only punish the actions of the people that use them. Pick your own locks, help people get into their cars, enter lock pick comps.... Cool. Use them to break into places and steal stuff.... Bad.

In most cases correct. I have always wondered why most liberals flip when it becomes a gun issue? To me.... A liberal is for personal property and people staying out of their business....... But that does not seem to apply to firearms. Conservatives don't think people should have many rights.. (gays, pot....ect) but thinks people should be allowed to have guns. Guns is one of the few issues the rolls seem to flip.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/SearchResults.aspx?catid=431&site=All+Products&num=10&q=Lock+picks

They stared rolling at 3AM. They watched his house all night And he made no threats: So I guess if I suddenly was 'concerned' you might be a danger you would be ok with the SWAT team taking you in handcuffs to a mental health screening while they confiscated your personal property? He asked if he was going to be handcuffed and taken from his house.... And they did it anyway. And the ACLU not getting involved is classic. If this had been something other than a gun issue they would be all over it. Sources: http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100328/NEWS/3280325

Using your logic..... You just called the President boy!!!!!!

Except, It just say's that we will not have a 'Church of the United States' like England had the 'Church of England' and that Congress will make no law prohibiting any religion.

He has in the past. No different than how some liberals want to blame Bush for everything.

Never gonna happen huh? Wrong again http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100309/NEWS/3090315 He was not even charged, but they used a registry to confiscate his weapons. You keep losing ground here.

How about guys that have not been even charged with a crime? Medford's hostage negotiators and SWAT team were called in at 3 a.m. Monday and arrived on the scene at about 5:45 a.m., he said. About a dozen officers responded. They closed the street for about an hour and evacuated three homes to protect neighbors and prevent bystanders from gathering, he said. After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said. Police seized the recently purchased firearms, as well as another .45-caliber Heckler & Koch handgun and a 12-gauge shotgun. Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed. http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100309/NEWS/3090315 You approve of sending the SWAT teams after a guy that has not even been CHARGED with a crime?

Then you have to define the "bubble". It seems pretty clear from the 2nd video that he was not THAT close. And anyone with a cell phone camera knows the distance it needs to be held. Also, Etheridge then grabbed the man and then grabbed him by the neck (to ME looks more like a "I was just messing with you" grasp after he realized he was on another video). It is about balance.... Grabbing a guy is not balance. If you are afraid of someone, you get away or take them down. He grabbed and questioned this "reporter". That is not fear but anger, IMO.

Considering sexual discrimination is considered by most to be illegal.... I think it wold fly.

Bravo!!!!!!!

And the anti gun nuts are doing what they do.... Funny how you approve of an illegal search and confiscation when it is about guns.... I bet you would not approve of the police going to a suspected drug owner and dragging him out at 4AM and making him take a drug test.

Like I said... Some people approve of it when it suits their political leanings and are afraid to just admit it

And they also have less right to privacy than the average person walking down the street due to their relatively high office and public visibility.

And claiming that only one party does it... While defending "your" party when they do it is stupid.

Try reading it again.

No, it is not. No more than you claiming: "Please try to make your point without spewing forth a flurry of severely adulterated, conflated, and out-of-context "quotes" cut and pasted from NRA literature. " to me is. Or you calling my arguments "phony" without being able to back them up. No, we attacked your position. Please prove them to be phony if you can.. Or admit they are not. Remember, you claimed Mahatma Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela, and Jesus agreed with you... I provided PROOF you were wrong. And therefore you disagree with the founding fathers and they claimed ideas like this were the biggest danger to democracy..... Like I said. And your position is not only against the FF's statements, but also history. Revolutionary War won the US its freedom. Civil War allowed people to fight for their freedom. Vietnam kept the French and the US from winning. Afghanistan rebels beat the USSR. Iraq still gives the US trouble. So your position *IS* against the Founding Fathers principals and they made claims that stances like yours is the biggest danger to Democracy. Again, just like I said. It does not say that... It says nothing about the States having the right. The majority in Heller agreed. "that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;" So, your position is not supported by the Founding Fathers, The Constitution, nor the SC. And your position is EXACTLY what the FF's warned about.... Just like I said. Nice quote... and I don't disagree. But exactly how do you propose to prevent someone with more power than you forcing you to do what they want? Ask nicely? I too would like to know what type of weapon you own.

Thank you.... And I disagree that they think that restriction is OK... The Court's opinion refrained from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right They didn't answer that one actually. They stated; "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."... "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." If you notice they do not say anything about Full Auto, only possession by felons, the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. If you had said the SC has ruled felons are not granted that right... I would agree. And the dicta in Heller already stated... "What is reasonable about a ban?" and that the DC law "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. But thank you for your answer.

And a great question. The Militia Act of 1792 " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act." Basically, anyone 18-45 that is able. Originally it was only white males, but I don't think anyone still holds those standards today. Also *in my opinion* the age of 45 is irrelevant today. This is supported by several statements from the time period: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason (3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." -- Richard Henry Lee writing in "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788, page 169. "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." -- Tench Coxe - 1788. My unofficial definition is: "Any citizen that is willing to take arms to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic."