[dales529]

Ok while I thought political posts were taboo here it is winter and since the thread is alive I for better or worse will "stir the pot" with "another" viewpoint not necessarily Liberal or conservative just factual.

1) The 2nd amendment is typically thrown around "loosely" at best from its original intent: See below:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms regardless of service in a militia. The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[1] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[2]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[3] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[4][5]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[5] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[6][7] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[8] Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.[9]

As cynical as fishermen are about "big Brother" I personally don't believe anyone is out to "TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY" but rather there is a concerted effort by both parties to overcompensate and test the provisions of existing Law when they see the opportunity for electorate gain. Having said that more Gun control is in order.

It is MY OPINION, contradictory to do nothing when its obvious that LEGAL Guns have been taken from LAW Abiding citizens and used by mentally deranged children, young adults etc of those same LAW abiding citizens to KILL children at schools, theaters , kill friends while playing etc. Yes there are Laws in place for Legal Gun owner negligence and should be enforced as is because the negligence of some should NOT affect all. However enough instances have happened to dictate that those laws are apparently NOT enough . Therefore a reduction in magazines for ammo doesn't seem too much to ask. Lets face it you don't need 10 round clips to hunt and if it interferes with your target shooting get over it and reload more often.

Had the NRA (which I was once a member) taken the initiative to support better backround checks, 5 day waiting periods and regulation on gun shows it may not have come to this but they choose not to. You will never stop "criminals" from getting Illegal guns but nowadays its not just the "criminals" as these school shootings prove. My daughter is a teacher in a suburban area with many Gun owners and I am scared every day until she gets home safe> Should I have to worry about this NO.

2) To pin this ON Liberals or Conservatives is not fair either as again these terms are used way too loosely and the overcompensation to LAW is on both sides BUT the EXTREMES are at issue: Thomas Jefferson (smart man that he was always stated that the constitution was a guideline based on the times and meant to be and expected to be amended as needed based on the culture of the times.)

Outside of gun issue:
How can you say you are "Pro Life" when everyone (at least in my circles) is "Pro Life" you are either Pro choice per the LAW or Anti Choice . Why feel you are against "BiG" Government interference, subsidy for the poor , Illegals etc and then say save all the unwanted children so the government can subsidize the foster care, medical,mental clinics etc that these uncared for "saved" children seem to enter .

You complain the Government takes away your LEGAL rights as gun owners because they don't think you are capable of making the right decision and then you want to take away a womens LEGAL right to choose for the same reasons. Doesn't make sense.

Not going to drag this out but the same lack of fair play by both parties can be attributed to many of todays issues and EXTREME views (hate to say but more so from the right) are with total discourse of facts and getting in the way. FISHING comes to mind which is what this site is about.