Fairweather

Sorry, I guess my reply was a little excessive.

shouldn't the fact that you're assuming he doesn't know this disqualify you too? Since we were talking about "the status quo", no. Reading comprehension, Ivan. Try to follow along.

The fact that you don't know these safeguards are already in place disqualifies you from further commentary on this subject. When you buy a firearm you are subject to an automatic FBI background check and, unless you have a CWP, there is a 3 to 5 day wait. The check does not include the serial number of the weapon and the record of the check is supposedly purged after 12 or 18 months. If the states can't keep track of mental patients then something certainly needs to be done about that. I can't think of anyone who wants mental patients with guns. How would registering guns solve this problem? I'm gonna go ride my bike up Green Mountain now--TBC.

Guns are traceable through the point of purchase. How would registering guns determine if someone was in possession of an "illegal weapon"? That's your most convoluted logic yet. Guns enjoy special protection under the constitution that cars don't. Simple as that. The fact that you and many of your fellow (so-called) liberals have an innate need to exercise control through government over every aspect of people's lives is clearly a mental condition. And the constitution only seems to be an issue when you find it 'convenient'. The intransigence you assign to gun-rights advocates is staring you in the mirror. BTW: You never answered my abortion corollary to your 'gun-nut' rant.

I asked you a question. What is the point of registering guns with the government? Do you think this would decrease crime? Would criminals comply? Or would this simply enable the government to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens more easily? Again; what would the point be?

The status quo--as of today--is just fine with me. You OK with that? Which guns legal today do you think should be banned? how about all guns legal today have to be registered? Nope. What would the point of that be?

Without sites like this, we'd be left with only CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, PBS, NYT, editorials masquerading as "news". Think of all the stories that mainstream media has been drug kicking and screaming to. If it were not for right-leaning media to balance out the left there would be no complete picture. What's worse? The right-media's constant harping, or the left-media's constant sins of omission?

TTK is probably right about this. The vast majority of Americans would likely roll over re guns, leaving a very small minority to take the hit. Like I said before, the real power lies in the government's ability to pull your strings which is why maintaining these rights through political pressure is so important. Australia went through this over 10 years ago and pretty much everyone just rolled over-- although there were a few gun battles.

The status quo--as of today--is just fine with me. You OK with that? Which guns legal today do you think should be banned?

Not making fun of them at all. I think their concerns are legitimate if not premature. I'll even bet many of them were union Dem's voting for Obama.

I actually stopped by a local gun shop today and noticed it was a very busy place. I thought their hunting season would have peaked long ago, so I asked the clerk why it was so busy. He replied that sales of guns and ammunition are triple what they were this time prior year and that most are buying handguns and mil spec-type weapons in anticipation of an Obama victory next week and eventual attacks by the democrat congress and Obama on gun rights. FWIW

I guess Joe doesn't like tough questions: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/obama-campaign-cuts-interviews-florida-tv-station/

Halfway to what? Thanks for revealing what little you understand about evolution. And speaking of women who would have been a better choice than Palin; I watched a Jeri Thompson (former candidate Fred Thompson's much younger wife) in an interview the other night. Twice as hot and 10 times as smart/articulate as the gov. Wow. And I'm still wondering why McCain didn't pick Kay Bailey-Hutchison.

Fortunately, my position is protected in the Bill of Rights from nut jobs like you. The fact that you live in Portland doesn't help your case regarding "strange".

Hey estupidias; I fixed it for you:

I think certain key members of congress will--and Obama would be unlikely to veto any bill they sent to him.

Thank you. I'm still not sure what Matt is talking about, though.

Please explain. Is Obama going to somehow change it?

You know this simply is not true. Please share the SCOTUS decision that you are referring to. The 1939 decision left it ambiguous.

This, coming from a guy who was living with his parents as recently as last year?

They didn't even endorse Teddy Roosevelt.

This is, like, last month's news. Will you please ask Joe Biden how many letters there are in J-O-B-S? Or who the best candidate for VP would have been? Or how soon we'll be attacked if Obama becomes president? Or how a paraplegic man should stand for an ovation? Or what article 1 of the Constitution says? Or how FDR reassured Americans in 1929 on Television that didn't yet exist? Or....

It was Mailbox. And he would have had to keep up.

The second amendment is one of your freedoms, whether you exercise it or not. Twas in reference to your statement that since the government is run by liberals who want to leave criminals in the street you NEED your guns to protect your family, since nobody else is doing it right. I will keep and cherish my my freedoms, but find the open ended NRA ideology of what the 2nd amendment was written for is ludicris. State/City run militias were the idea...not any weapon for any person. The Supreme court recently saw it otherwise. Guess you know better, though.