I'm glad there are sportsmen (like my father) who realize the NRA keeps itself relevant by scaring people into thinking Dems want to take their guns away. There might be a debate about assault rifles, but no Dem is going to take away your 2nd amendment rights. Debating it as a voting issue is a waste of time...

Given the recent Supreme Court ruling, there's no need to throw the country's future away over the threat of a crackdown on guns. It ain't gonna happen.

Here's the thing I don't get about the "race card" discussion on Obama (and, yes, I realize I, a white person, have a pretty simplistic attitude on race/ethnicity):

Obama is as much white as he is black. So where's the issue? Although I see both whites and blacks keep bringing it up. What's that all about?

As for gun issues, I don't own a gun and don't want to, but I have farming relatives (most of whom are Democrats and NOT members of NRA) who own guns to protect their families, livestock and dogs from being attacked by coyotes, raccoons and other wildlife that are rabid. My underage nephews have been well taught about gun safety -- it's part of the lifestyle.

In most of the mainstream discussions on gun control, nobody seems to be discussing disarming the populace; a call for proper background checks and a reasonably short waiting period is not the same as disarmanent.

And no farmer I've ever met needs an Uzi to shoot a coyote or a rapid dog. Nor do any city dwellers need an Uzi to protect themselves.

A registered handgun? Our current laws provide for that.

Jack, I respect you and your opinions, but you are so wrong on that. Washington D.C. right now is developing laws to put obstacle after obstacle on gun ownership there. California is making end runs against guns by making ammunition ridiculously expensive or impossible to get. Groups of Democrat politicians want to outlaw all automatic guns, including the automatic hunting shotguns that have a magazine capacity of 3 shells.

In regard to that article; Montana has become gentrified with an inrush of well heeled Californians for some time now. Certainly the new demographics are going to show up as an up tick for the Democrats. In any event, hunters don’t care about the color of Obama’s skin; they care about his stance on gun control. They rightfully are scared that he will support the restrictive gun regulations as found in California and Washington DC.

"They rightfully are scared that he will support the restrictive gun regulations as found in California and Washington DC."

Or they're paranoid. One or the other.

Mr. Deeds:

Just because one is paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get you.

Groups of Democrat politicians...

Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. At least your juvenile name-calling easily alerts us that your pathetically partisan post isn't worth taking the time to read...

Nate Currie

Dem’o’crat (noun)
Dem•o•crat (Dem’o’crats)
A member of the Democratic Party, one of the two major political parties in the United States.

You got the noun part correct. Since when was calling someone a Democrat considered name calling? As far as being partisan, isn’t that what politics are about, or do you just apply it in a negative connotation with someone you disagree with?

"And no farmer I've ever met needs an Uzi to shoot a coyote or a rapid dog. Nor do any city dwellers need an Uzi to protect themselves."

Sure. But on the other hand, no one needs a Porsche, or any sports car. You can't go that fast, and the speed limit is 65. But people have them, because they enjoy them. Everyone has a hobby. Different strokes for different folks. Some people enjoy being able to own a fully automatic weapon. In both cases of machine guns and fast cars, both are legal in Oregon and both can be acquired by the rich. When's the last time you heard of a death in Oregon related to an Uzi anyway? I am sure there are more deaths attributed to automobiles. Do we need to restrict those?

I know you can't understand why someone would want an Uzi, because that's not what you're interested in. Just as I can't see why some people want to pay so much for a carbon fiber bicycle. Gun ownership is not strictly for utility "self protection." It's also a hobby and sport (target shooting competition.)

The second amendment isn't about hunting.

"but no Dem is going to take away your 2nd amendment rights."

Voting records show otherwise. I'd hate to see the condition of the second amendment in a world where the NRA doesn't exist.

Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. At least your juvenile name-calling easily alerts us that your pathetically partisan post isn't worth taking the time to read...

Whereas your grammar pedantics are not a counterpoint to his argument, but rather an ad hominem attack - and a widely used one on the Internet.

As for "no Dem is going to take away your 2nd amendment rights," this is exactly what happened with the "Assault" weapons ban signed into law by Bill Clinton - my father's Marlin semi-automatic .22 sport rifle magically turned into an assault rifle if he bought a 10-round clip for it, because it was a vertical clip. However, my Ruger 10-22 (same caliber, also semi-automatic) didn't because it used a box magazine that fit flush into the bottom of the receiver.

These two guns, feature-wise, are exactly the same. Same calibre, same ammunition, same barrel length, same ammo capacity. One is an "assault weapon" and one is not.

Just try to tell me that didn't take away my father's 2nd amendment rights.

The problem of the unreasoned middle is there is no logical extension, as there is no logic to extend. The high and low of it:

Above consideration --- Why is there no National Bazooka Assn., and no National Howitzer Assn., no NASTAR - National Assn of Sports Tanks And Racing? Bazookas, howitzers, mortars, cannons, armored tanks and such are ARMS, and we should defy any government attempts to take away our 2nd Amendment Right to own them -- requisites of "a well regulated Militia" and "necessary to the security of a free state" of self-governance. There could be ONE Million artillery enthusiasts and collectors who may 'enjoy' an avocational 'hobby' of 'target practice' and 'range competitions.' Besides, for the argument that armed citizens 'prevent Government takeover,' we better have some fire-power throw-weight in our neighborhoods and community to match the takeover forces. Since M16 and AK-47 'pea shooters' are useless in the event our village is being siege-shelled from an artillery basecamp 5 miles out of town, over the ridge ... whaddaya gonna do, converge a 'citizen special ops squad' and overrun the artillery implacement? with UZI's? HA! Logic will get you through times of no bullets, better than bullets will get you through times of no logic (with apologies to the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers).

Below consideration --- ARMS is guns, not musketballs, grapeshot, bullets, ballistics nor any of the other stuff that comes out the rifle-bored barrels of ARMS. The 2nd Amendment gives NO Right to manufacture with intent to sell, nor distribute, nor to buy ammunition -- particularly NOT cartridge ammunition since the signing authority of the Bill of Rights cannot grant Right for a thing that hasn't been invented, which the authority cannot enact. Else, the 2nd Amendment interpretation must allow 'a well regulated citizen militia' -- i.e., you and me -- to keep and bear jet fighters and medium-range missiles, as ARMS. Exactly: that 'ARMS' is guns, not ballistics.

And if you want cartridge ammunition for home-owner ARMS, then load your own, for personal use. Copy the model legislation for beer, which allows us to homebrew our own for personal consumption TAX FREE ... within a limit. Farmers and ranchers and game hunters got no problem with loading their own ammunition; only urban malefactors complain. Patrick Moynihan proposed a 10,000% tax rate on mass-manufactured ammunition -- the Motion is tabled and may be called for reconsideration.

----
Logically, it stands to reason, not if but when The Government is going to 'takeover this country' and take our country away from us, the method of invasion is NOT door-to-door assault and NOT any form that any citizen kept-and-borne firearms can defend against or repel. Rather, instead, the takeover invasion of our country comes by attacks and assault above your shoulders. behind your eyes. between your ears. under your cap.

"The most powerful weapon in the hands of the oppressor, is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko. ... uh, 'think' about it.

... and seeing the kooky nooks between the ears of gun nuts today, like LIARS Larson, apparently the Government takeover invasion of our communities is far advanced and succeeding spendidly ... uh, 'splendid' from the oppressor's p.o.v.

No matter how you choose to read the wording of the second amendment, it'll never change the fact that gun control simply doesn't work. Not now, not ever.