Heck, the networks are just going to try anyway possible to do the "Can I get me hunting' license here"...with some kind of a fake comparison to  Kerry...

I worry not about this.

Big times are coming down the pike Warner..Thompson is just gonna' take that dueling pistol out so cleaned and prepared.. aim it good when we get to the SC primary..that nobody-on either coasts are gonna' know what hit them!

Of course that is just my opinion..and my opinion has been so wrong before...LOL!

Take it for what you will...but really they are in the desperation mode...the long knives aren't even out yet, let alone the ones' that bother to sharpen them on their tripe. 

What must God think of liberals?  Surely He is disgusted by how they refuse to use their brain for actual thinking.

This is another facet of their feeling that unless you are one of what you are discussing, you can't have an opinion about it.  Yet at the same time, liberals are constantly opining (and legislating) about things they have no clue about nor any connection to.

If liberals were consistent (try saying that with a straight face), they would interpret the 2nd Amendment in such a manner that they would require militias be formed and armed rather than trying to take guns from law-abiding citizens.  But given the spirit behind the amendment, liberals are possibly the ones the amendment was designed to allow us to protect ourselves from.

How can liberals say the right to bears arms doesn't exist when it is actually written in The Constitution while the right to an abortion does when it isn't actually written there?  But then when you feel a document is 'living', it is meaningless since it can be changed on a whim.  They love that when it benefits them.

"It is the military usage of guns and the protection they afford that the 2nd Amendment is interested in, not hunting." - ??

Au contraire - the amendment is clear in the context of history, it is to guarantee the individual the right to keep and bear arms in opposition to government tyranny. Socialist later-day revisionism would have you believe it was about state-owned and controlled troops, or 'state militias' - which is pure poppycock.

Madison envisioned private citizens defeating any US Army - or state controled army.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 28 made the same point, saying;

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is
then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of
self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government,
and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be
exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of
the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons
intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels,
subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct
government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The
citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without
system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

What the socialist have tried to do - and continue to try to do, is disarm the citizen - under-arm the citizen - bluntly attempting to make the second amendment nul and void of its original intent.

Sadly - they have been far too successful, and one day this nation will face raw deadly tyranny once again.

 "Yet, here is CNN acting as if Thompson should be looked at askance . "

 What the hell does that mean? Askance?

You're cruising for a wedgie pal.

Victory in Iraq.

NRA Life Member here.  Concealed Carry Permit Holder.

No hunting license.

Why would anyone get a hunting license if they don't hunt anymore or have time to hunt?  What a bunch of morons. 

“It isn’t that liberals are ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so” – Ronald Reagan

Well, Hussein Obama supports abortion, but has NEVER had one!!! What a FRAUD!

When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

Did CNN shoot themselves in the foot again?  

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

i don't have a pilots license but i kept blackhawk helicopters and h-53 helicopters and a myriad of civilian helicopters flying for the pilots that do fly them for over 10 years.

with this thought process i'm assuming that everyone who flys on a commercial jet each day must have a pilots license too.

lets switch and quantify this thought process to a liberal agenda, every woman who is pro choice must have first had at least 3 abortions or else they can't march in parades with signs.

i own about 5 firearms, i have never hunted in my life, never owned a hunting license, so obviously i can't support the 2nd amendment.

lunaticcringeradio

ps this is why i am pro abortion, idiots tend to have them, and idiots wont be forced to raise more idiots that will be this stooopid. let the morons kill themselves off. plus i want more parking and less traffic.

[Note: I posted the following recently as a reply to a comment by USA4freedom hoping to generate an exchange of views, or just some general opinion on the Second Amendment, its limitations [if any] and related issues.  Other than a couple of brief remarks by MightyMouth and bassndude, there was virtually no response.   I've decided to give it one more shot...if still no interest, I promise to never bring it up again.] 

December 4, 2007 - 09:32 ET by Jer

No doubt, USA4, those punks were dissuaded by the sudden realization that they might make your day.  Good.  But they also might just move on to more opportunistic targets...such as elderly women or others less likely to be armed.  [Maybe a "Glocks for Grannies" campaign should be launched.]

Let me make one thing clear:  I believe anyone should be able to own and keep, at the very least, a shotgun on his or her property.  Beyond that, for me anyway, the matter gets complicated.  And many years of thought and analysis haven't advanced or clarified my position one whit.

So what are your views USA4?  Let me ask a few questions:

--Do you support any restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms, or do you consider the Second Amendment to be absolute in its protection of the citizenry from governmental gun control?

--Would you favor universal arming of the public?  In other words, would we have a safer society if every man woman and child not only possessed the legal right to own and carry firearms, but all individuals as a matter of fact carried guns?  Would we be a more stable, more gentile nation?

--Should there be any limitations on where firearms could be carried? To restaurants, bars, churches, concerts, schools, the garden club, birthday parties, on planes, buses, to places of employment?  Or are some locale restrictions legitimate.

--What about types of weapons? The Second Amendment specifies the right to bear arms.  Arms include a heck of a lot more than just my twelve gauge shotgun.  An AK-47 is certainly an "arm".  For that mattter, so is a bazooka, a tank and a Patriot missile.  Why wouldn't those arms be within the purview of constitutional protection?  I once read a statement in one of Wayne LaPierre's books that those weapons weren't consistent with the traditional muskets possessed by colonial era Americans.  Well, Mr. LaPierre, that's an interesting anecdote--and it has nothing to do with the unmodified word "arms" contained in the Second Amendment.  So how about it...why prohibit a fully automatic M-16? 

It seems to me that LaPierre's philosophy--and that of the NRA--employs the theory that the level of public safety within American society exists in direct proportion to the degree to which the citizenry is armed.  That is, the more people with more guns equals more safety.  I just don't know that I can buy the argument.  There will always be criminals.  If the natural and consistent presumption of the criminal is that his target is armed, he will simply use more stealth and greater--and more frequently lethal--force to make sure he maintains the advantage over his victim.

[By the way, I hear of pawn shops getting hit from time to time, and they gernerally are well stocked with various firearms.]

Anyway, you needn't respond to every single question I've crammed into this post, but I would be interested in reading some more of your general thoughts on the topic.

Thanks, Jer

It fits into the media's faulty "understanding" of the 2nd Amendment, which in the liberal's mind is to protect the right to hunt.

That's the convenient false canard that liberal pols use when they say they are for the 2nd Amendment, they usually qualify it by talking about not taking away rights from hunters.

Of course, I think it's not smart, if you're a liberal pol, to defend hunting. You need all those vegan voters that you can get.

I'm not a smoker. I guess using CNN's logic, I have no right to oppose all the new anti-smoking laws that take a smoker's rights away, to use a perfectly legal product. And in some cases, take those rights away, even in their own homes and cars. I better start smoking if I want to have any say there.

And I've always supported gun rights. I guess I don't have that right anymore. At least not until I get a gun. I better do that too. Thanks CNN for clearing it all up for me!