His record isn't likely to win back the rural "pro-gun" voters who've fled to the Republicans in recent years, likely costing Gore the election in 2000. From the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999:
Sweeping federal gun control legislation proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-13th) would increase the penalties on gun runners who are flooding Chicago's streets with illegal weapons.
At an anti-gun rally held at the Park Manor Christian Church, 600 E. 73rd St., headed by the Rev. James Demus, Obama also said he's backing a resolution being introduced into the City Council by Alds. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), Ted Thomas (15th), Leslie Hairston (5th) to call for a "shot-free" millennium celebration.
Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home. [!!!]
He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.
He's also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.
He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park. He's also banning the sale of 'junk" handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials.
Obama is requiring that all people working at a gun dealer undergo a criminal background check. He's also asking that gun manufacturers be required to develop safety measures that permit only the original owner of the firearm to operate the weapon purchased.
Additionally, he wants an increase of the funds for schools to teach anger management skills for youth between the ages of 5-13. Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.
Seems like Obama found a missing word in the Second Amendment: "the right of the _rich_ people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But poor people who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods, and thus who would seem to have great need to defend themselves against crime, are effectively prohibited from buying a handgun that they can afford.
This is a good example of how poorly thought out his proposals are. How do you define a “Saturday Night Special?” Is it a good idea to ban this class of weapon assuming you can define it well enough to write legislation?
For those people who want to ban low caliber, poorly made handguns. Would you rather get shot with one of those or a more high quality weapon like a Glock? A poor quality gun might not discharge at all. If criminals find it harder to get handguns, won’t they simply buy a shotgun, cut the barrel short, and then conceal it a shopping bag?
I would much rather criminals use junk handguns.
Does “securely” mean a gun safe? Again Obama seems to think that weapons are only for the well to do.
In a metropolitan area like Chicago wouldn't that effectively be an absolute ban on gun sales? Or I should say...legal gun sales.
Well, he may be charismatic, but he's just another corrupt politician when it comes to hiding his record when he thinks it might turn off some of the voters - plenty of Democrats, not to mention Republicans, own guns.
Of course, all of this assumes that a ban will actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Why Democrats were willing to sacrifice so much on the gun issue is beyond me. Excessive gun control is both bad policy and bad politics.
"Mr. Obama, do you support a ban on so-called 'assault weapons'?"
"Assault weapons continue to devastate our cities and are a scourge upon humanity, but unfortunately civilian possession is protected by the Second Amendment. As President, I would be required to uphold the Constitution, so I must veto any assault-weapon ban presented to me."
Does this seem possible, or am I just dreaming?
You dream
Obama would simply decry the decision and pledge to appoint Justices who would reinterpret the 2nd Amendment
And you call yourself a Liberal?
The black-market sellers of drugs and guns are, however, doing a fine business according to a homicide detective. A gang member can buy one at 3 am. He can even get it delivered (with bullets, if desired). He is not deterred by any of the state's myriad of "gun control" laws because, as a criminal, laws are irrelevant to him.
"Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home."
Depends on how you define securely, I guess. But punishing people for negligence that results in harm makes sense. Perhaps a felony is too high, or the definition of securely not spelled out, but not the worst thing in the world.
"while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park."
You can't sell guns where kids congregate. What's so bad about this? We have similar laws for alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
There is no place in NY state that is not within 5 miles of a school or park.
Where do they have laws banning alcohol or cigarettes within 5 miles of a school or park?
I suspect he would omit his disagreement with the decision. This is one battle that he would not want to pick and I expect him to take refuge in the "decided law" position. There are safer places (Roe v. Wade for example) where he can argue the SCOTUS nominee benefit of electing him. Too many moderate Democrats are uncomfortable with the notion that the Second Amendment does not actually mean anything.
Someone breaks into MY house, steals a weapon along with the TV, Stero, 'puter...... AND I GO TO JAIL! WTF!!! Are you out of your mind?
Mark
Last August San Francisco city officials called for a ban on gun shows at the Cow Palace. But neither Daly City nor San Francisco has jurisdiction over the Cow Palace, which is a creature of the California Department of Agriculture. City officials just “know” that there are illegal gun purchases at Cow Palace gun shows. How do they know that? Simple: neighborhood gossip. According to this article, there has never been an arrest for an illegal gun sale at the Cow Palace in the whole 23-year history having shows there.
You got it. Don’t you understand, to many on the left, which includes some Obama supporters, you are the enemy? You’re “the man,” not a “brother.”
-Perhaps you should explain why such a law is even needed, beyond some vague inference that a gun store within a few miles of a park or school somehow contributes to crime.
hilarious. an anonymous online poster has some information from an anonymous "insider" about a candidate that he doesn't like.
How many robbers who don't have guns steal them, anyway? If they want to be armed, they are probably going to get the gun first. But if your kid's friend is over, sees your gun, takes it, and ends up shooting someone, I have no problem holding you liable.
What's wrong with having a gun store near a school or where kids congregate? No, really - under Federal law, a gun dealer can't sell to anyone under 21, most states have similar laws (but since all gun dealers must be federally licensed, the Federal rules apply) although the state's rules on possession may allow minors to own guns given to them by parent or guardian. In many states, the dealer can't even let a minor touch a gun in the store unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian. And anyone who thinks that some kid's looking in a store window and seeing some guns is going to turn them into homicidal criminals is either a believer in witchcraft or ignorant.
If he is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will make sure every American is aware of his history on this issue, and it will not be a pretty sight.
Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.
Yeah, well, I thought people should have to "pass a basic course" in order to be able to vote, but some jerk told me that was unconstitutional.
He at least voted for the Vitter Amendment, though, which Hillary didn't; I swear she's never seen a power grab that she didn't immediately support.
Laugh it up, but it's still true.
I think it will be found an individual right. But what level of protection will it be given? That of political speech or pornography? My suspicion on the application: inside the home: high; outside the home: not so much. Right to purchase: high; right to sell: not so much. Criminal or civil liabilty for "negligent" storage: it depends, but probably not.
You don't go to the right gun shows. Come on over to Georgia. Barely room to walk b/c of all the tables. Very pretty. Interestingly you can't carry a concealed weapon at a gun show in this state.
Oh, I have nothing against people saying what they believe, in fact, I appreciate it: It makes what they say a better guide to whether or not they believe something really stupid and/or offensive.
Our problem with Obama isn't his being truthful, it's his being truthful about wanting to do some remarkably bad things.
I wish this were true. Unfortunately, gun bans do keep guns out of the hands of those who, for one reason or another, are unwilling to break the law, so they're worse than harmless. When I visit my family in NY, I leave my handguns behind. If the next "assault weapons" ban--almost certain to be adopted if the Democrats win--doesn't grandfather pre-ban guns, I'll probably end up with a partly empty gun safe. The "If guns are outlawed ... " slogan is kind of hokey, but it's also true.
The good Democrats who coined the term also defined it, and it's pretty much the same definition used today. A SNS is a gun that isn't good for anything except N*****town on Saturday night.
The term SNS was coined during one of the first gun control campaigns in the US. That campaigned was aimed at disarming freed slaves.
You have got to be kidding me. Have you ever actually read a police report of a burglary? One of the first things that burglars look for are guns. They're easy to sell if you want to get rid of them and easy to use for future crimes if you'd rather keep them.
Also, the laws prohibiting sales of things "harmful to children" -- usually sex-related stuff that I've seen, not alcohol or tobacco, incidentally, which you can buy at most Wal-Marts -- have a limit of 500 or 1000 feet. 5 miles is a little absurd. Do you really think kids are going to trek three or four miles to go look at guns in a shop window? Good grief.
How is "securely stored" defined?
What would be the effect of a law that says that if a weapon is stolen, it is presumed not to have been "securely stored"?
"Locked" means unavailable for home protection; the DC laws being the extreme example of this. Obama's idea defeats one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment.
It's become a mantra that all guns and ammo should be locked separately, but there's plenty of epidemiological evidence which shows that easy availability of a LOADED firearm makes homes safer. Legally owned firearms thwart crime much more frequently than guns are involved in accidents or (usually illegally-owned) are used in crime.
You are close. 18 year olds are allowed to buy shotguns and rifles, but you can not (legally) buy handguns until you are 21.
Yet another example of treating adults like children, you can shoot handguns or drive tanks in the military at 18, but do not try to buy a handgun at 18.
If memory serves, it was in April of 2003.
And yet, gun nuts like me will still hold it against him.
Kind of like how abortion rights activists will hold it against a candidate if they favor "reasonable" restrictions that 70% of the public is okay with...
Or how gay rights activists will be upset with a candidate who doesn't want the government to recognize gay marriage, despite that the majority of Americans are okay with things the way they are...
Illinois is a one-Party state much like California is, and I'd be very reluctant to separate state political, history agenda, and behaviors from any politician emerging therefrom.
“Our problem with Obama isn't his being truthful, it's his being truthful about wanting to do some remarkably bad things.”
I agree completely. The reason I brought that up is many people (including me) believe that politicians tend to take more extreme positions during the primary season to appeal to their base. Then after they get elected, they get more centered when they have to confront the realities of governance. That’s not the case with Obama. He really believes what he says. This will make a move to the center difficult for him. Since we know so little about him, we don’t know how flexible he really is. Thus in my book, he is too much a risk to vote for.
I went to a show in Virginia the year before and found it similarly disappointing. I guess it was the same outfit running both shows. In Virginia you just walked in. At the Cow Palace there were cops and checks and warnings. But that’s northern California for you. It exists in it’s own world.
That’s okay because it’s not like gun registration would ever be used as the prelude to gun confiscation, right?
Thanks for the morning laugh.
Let me guess, not only do you not own a firearm, you've never fired one. Correct?
OK, Mr. Liberal, you're gonna have to change your name now. Ya see, many of the commenters here don't do nuance. The liberals are evil and inept, see. And part of their ineptitude is manifested by their desire to take away every gun in the nation and replace them with fairy dust. So, someone with "liberal" in his name supporting some form of gun rights might cause an existential crisis for some. It just can't be! The caricatures are gonna have to be re-drawn now!
And as someone who agrees with many of the positions deemed "liberal," what'd happen if they knew I am against affirmative action. Their heads might explode or something.
Nuance is not welcome here. You're either a USA-loving patriot, or you're a leftist, a liberal, or a (gasp!) SOCIALIST!
Really? No "constitutional problem" at all?
What if the government required you to keep your laptop, typewriter, pens, and paper locked up because someone may steal them and threaten somone else with them. That would be ok with you?
Simply put, there are no limits on govermental authority in your mind.
This is stunning to read. It really is.
___
Extended reading: For the flip side, review the UK's violent crime rate since banning handguns. I'll give you a hint at what to expect, UK bobbies (Cops) never had to carry a handgun until..... they were banned by the gov't....ironic isn't?
Do I really need to say more?
____
Underbob- I'm with you on moving to Alaska...or WY.
Yeah, but it's too cold to serve the search warrants. :D
In fact, my husband was once prosecuted for having a firearm stolen out of his briefcase. I asked him if that was fair, and he said absolutely. (He got off on a technicality.) He is no fan of Obama or any other Democrat, but he believes strongly that if you own a firearm, you must be responsible for keeping it out of the hands of criminals.
Not only that, but in South Africa you must also show proof that you own the gun for which you are buying bullets. You cannot just walk into a store and pick up bullets.
I asked him why then is the crime rate in S.A. so much worse than America? He chalked it up to unemployment. As unemployment goes up, so does crime. Besides, these laws were on the books long before S.A. got violent -- which began to escalate once there were free elections.
He's a strong Republican and proud gun owner, but it would appear he believes some control is in order.
Considering that Bloomberg is trying to regulate gun shops several states away, it's not surprising that Obama would have talked about creating federal laws.
If a high school kid steals my car and kills a pedestrian, why should I be held accountable?
Should we prosecute parents for allowing their kids to be molested? Because if they had their kids locked up safe and sound, the child molester would never have been tempted.
Should silverware manufactures be held responsible for causing obesity, since their utensils facilitate the ability to shovel food into our mouths?
Should ford motor company be held accountable when people drink and drive?
Should liquor manufactures be held accountable when people drink and drive?
Lets also make sure to hold Walmart accountable for selling gloves, that can aid criminals in not leaving their finger prints behind?
Or how about Lowe's for selling power tools that could be used in a destructive manner.
Give me an F***ing break!
We have got to stop passing the blame for someones actions onto someone or something else. It is sickening! People are responsible for their own actions, period. I don't care if you have "Daddy Issues" or where your stole that gun from or whatnot, if you kill/rape/molest/shoot someone its your fault, sit your ass in the chair *Flip Switch.*
Requiring a course would actually help stop murder, no? Having a gun and not knowing how to aim is a good way to get yourself shot. You guys are as idiotic as NARAL on abortion - it's not necessary to ban guns, but reasonable restrictions, tailored to increase public safety (like not selling to crazy, depressed college kids) are perfectly sensible. This isn't the wild west, it's 2007.
That is a function of the gun show you attended. As a Texan who frequents gun shows I suppose I can provide the platinum-iridium reference experience. The gun shows I have attended featured I would fathom between a thousand and tens of thousands of guns, depending on the show. The big shows like the Houston Gun Collectors Assn show covers I would guess 3 football fields of space and includes e.g. displays of a few dozen restored vintage Jeeps, celebrities such as Paul Tibbets, and suchlike. I would say about half of the tables have guns on them.
All of the shows I have attended have been posted with Texas Penal Code 30.06 notifications at the entrances, prohibiting entry by armed CHL holders on pain of criminal trespass charges. This is a safety measure; mixing loaded guns in an environment where people are handling presumably unloaded guns is dangerous. As far as I understand the postings are not a requirement of law, but probably a requirement of the insurance coverage and exhibition hall management.
Contrary to popular political inference nearly all of the guns for sale are being sold by FFL holders, and are subject to the same federal paperwork and Brady check as required in a gunshop. In fact, my experience has been that the gun shows are essentially traveling groups of retailers that posses real bricks-and-mortar gunshops withing a few hundred mile radius. The operative metaphor is not "a giant flea market of guns" but rather "a giant shopping mall of guns". It is true that some show attendees may bring a personal gun (which is checked and zip-tied at the door by police officers) hoping to sell it, but I would estimate that this represents perhaps 1/100 to 1/1000 of the guns on offer. The HGCA show skews more towards private individuals selling, but their wares skew even moreso towards hunting and antiquity firearms. The "gunshow loophole" is an absolute myth.
The economic purpose of gunshows is to provide price differentiation between the infrequent/one-time buyer of guns and the aficionado. Guns are expensive, and those who collect them are highly knowledgeable in their values and are highly price sensitive owing to their high desires:resources ratio. As an example I purchased an HK P2000 new at a show for $650, and a few days later saw the identical gun in a local shop for $900.
And no, I would never vote for Obama, although none of my other choices are particularly palatable either.
Having to demonstrate proficiency with a gun before being able to buy one is a good way to keep yourself unarmed. Joseph Heller called this Catch-22.
And let me guess, you non-gun owner, no better yet, the government, gets to define "resonable" right?
Thanks for your informative post. Clearly I need to try other shows. Unfortunately the San Francisco Bay Area has a large population of people who are extremely hostile towards firearms. However the further you go from the San Francisco, Oakland Berkeley Axis the better it gets.
Stop pretending: the objective of mandatory training to get a gun license is to make it difficult to buy a gun. Mandatory training will be available twice a year, in a county 200 miles away, on a weekday, and limited to the first thirty people who actually show up on that day and sign in. And when and where will not be widely publicized, so the thirty people that show up will be friends and families of politicians.
You
Don't
Have
A
2nd Amendement
Right
To
Drive
Understand?
Why don't we have tests to vote by the way?
If you don't think this is the goal of Mayor Daley, Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Fenty, and the people running San Francisco, for starters, then you're either not informed or delusional.
Ain't that the truth.
Correlation and past experience is evidence, sir. Given such pleasant examples as Washington DC (legal ban on any new handguns and any usable rifles or shotguns, practical ban on all guns through zoning and transport laws), and the sheer pointlessness of the vast majority of these laws at preventing actual violent crime, it's pretty cut-and-dry what the point is.
I'll admit it's not some secret governmental goal, but only because politicians have made it rather obvious.
You don't have to have a drivers license to own a car, only to drive it away from your property.
I find that the farther you go from either San Francisco, Chicago or NYC, the better it gets. In fact, to stay as far as possible from any one of them, just move to Texas.
Quote of the day.
www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348
Our freedom depends on.
Yup, of course it is. How about an "undue burden" test?
Here at VC, the 9th amendment doesn't exist. To use it is to be a dreaded judicial activist (shudder!) Nor do the words "well regulated" exist in the 2nd amendment**. Certain constitutional rights and powers are absolute, others relative. But we aren't outcome-based.
Question: if the 4th amendment doesn't count during an indeterminate "war on terror" so we can actively prevent future attacks, what about the 2nd amendment? If terrorists were modifying assault rifles and going on suicide sprees at shopping malls and schools, would it count? More people die in gun homicides every year in the US than on 9/11 -- by far. Can the government declare a State of Emergency and suspend the Constitution already?
Gun-rights devotees have some good policy arguments (black markets are pointless) but sometimes you have to step back and wonder about the sanity of people who thought VA Tech would have been a safer place if all the students were carrying handguns all the time.
Obviously, Obama hates the Constitution and is ignorant besides. U Chicago hired him to teach because they hire totalitarian morons.
For example, I think the 9th Amendment isn't given nearly enough respect, and I am very disturbed by the current administration's cavalier attitude toward civil liberties. I have also never advocated more liberal concealed carry rules on campuses as a safety measure. (If I had my way, CCW would be allowed on campus, but not really for any reason having to do with school shootings.)
Also, the words "well-regulated militia" are in the Second Amendment, but you need to read some of the Heller briefs that David Kopel has been posting if you think that has some bearing on the legitimacy of gun control.
Nurse Bloomberg is successfully doing this, not trying.
Laptops that carry consumer financial data already must be secured. I don't recall if the penalties are criminal or civil, but if you're entrusted with something that can cause injury in the wrong hands, you've got the responsibility to keep it out of the wrong hands. On the same basis, we need to start holding gun owners accountable.
Pen and paper - don't worry, these'll be obsolete in five years anyway.
Questioning the sanity of your opponents is not always effective in avoiding the debate. In fact, from Wikipedia:
Arming the populace is a bad idea. Arming intoxicated young men is crazy. I am very sure that most college students including those at Tech would agree. Very sure.
What a country of fool's our country has become. I really think there should be a aptitude test in order to vote. It seems our citizens have lost all rationale in rational thinking.
Just look at Great Britain, a real nightmare they had when they confiscated all firearms. The results were tragic as they were predictable.
In London the chances of being mugged is six times greater in New York city.
First of all, the 4th Amendment is written in considerably less absolute language. If you want to figure out why, take a look at the letters between Jefferson and Madison in 1788 when they were discussing a Bill of Rights, pro and con.
You mean, someone might have gotten hurt there if one or two of the victims had shot at Cho Seung-Hui?
It isn't just college kids who these laws disarm, by the way. It is also faculty and staff. Of course, you probably think that they all drink a lot, and are therefore untrustworthy as well. Maybe we shouldn't be trusting them to teach our kids!
And if we get to that situation, we'll probably have martial law anyway--and all the ACLU's whining won't make much of a difference. All their wonderful abstractions will start to melt like butter on a Phoenix summer's day, because the death count will be so high.
Liberal icon FDR decided that he had the authority to lock up American citizens because of their ancestry--the Court agreed.
Oh yeah: like the story that started this conversation.
Gun accidents are one the least likely ways to be injured. You are much more at risk of choking to death while eating your lunch than getting shot by an untrained gun owner.
Source: Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press Aug 17, 1999
Source: Los Angeles Times, “McCain Calls for Hearings” Aug 17, 1999
Since when is having your home broken into negligence? How is a stored weapon a weapon that you can bring to bear for defence? I would think that a goblin would not have his or their weapon equipped with a trigger safety.
This is all BAD stances on ownership. BAD.
In many jurisdictions (including Virginia) it's illegal for a CCW holder to be drinking or even in an establishment that serves alcohol while carrying a concealed firearm. Given the near total lack of empirical evidence nationwide that CCW holders (including 21+ young men both in and out of college) are regularly involved in alcohol-fueled gun incidents, I strongly suspect this straw man argument has no merit.
Statistically, CCW permit holders are involved in even less criminal conduct than police officers. Perhaps this is because CCW holders realize that the permit is a privilege, not a right, and they can lose it for even minor infractions. This tends to moderate behavior.
The "kids on campus drink too much" dawg just won't hunt...
Let's not forget the Che Guevara flag in the Houston office of Obamessiah .......
Don't forget about Australia. Since enacting their draconian laws on firearms Home invasion has absolutely Sky Rocketed! Simply because the criminals have nothing to fear.
_____
My buddy sent me this last night, And I felt compelled to post it up for everyone to see.
-------
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for dinner;
freedom is a well-armed sheep.
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
~ Thomas Jefferson
(This is why Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton want gun control so badly! )
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety. No shit!
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
IF YOU AGREE, PASS THIS "REFRESHER" ON TO TEN FREE CITIZENS.
"control" laws of any kind -
This man had 19 DUIs and was still driving around putting
lives at risk:
Prohibition again anyone?
Society's ills are complex problems that require complex, long-term and usually expensive solutions that most of us
have no patience or stomach for. We reap the society that
we cultivate.
Hah. Says you. Feel free to move to any one of the numerous jurisdictions where that's the law of the land if that's how you feel. You'll probably get free health care to boot. Quit trying to screw up the United States: the last place on earth where the average man isn't a serf.
You know, if you leave your keys in the ignition, someone takes it for a joyride, and then gets in an accident, yeah, I'd say you're partially liable. Any lawyers want to comment? And, by the way, at least in some jurisdictions it is an offense to leave your keys in the car where it's too easy to steal.
I know that pro-gun types are worried that gun control advocates have a secret agenda of confiscating their Precious Objects. OK. But in return, gun control advocates are getting the impression that gun owners want totally irresponsible firearms use including allowing easy access to thieves (what, report that gun theft, who me?) with even less legal entanglement than a bicycle owner.
In Northern Kentucky where i went to school there was a bar right across the street. As well A gun shop. You could look out the school window and see them both. I never seen any problems become of this. But maybe its because it was in the country and peoples mind set is differnt and level headed than some parts of the United states.
Ohbama is smokeing the crack pipe if he thinks his ideas will work. His ideas sound like something england would do. and look at them.. We should be the example for the rest of the world instead of trying to follow bad examples other countries set. I thought us americans knew better. I would like to see him take the guns away from a city or neigborhood of rednecks. Or tell them they can't buy a gun for their pleasure or protection. It would never happen................
So, how is it that locking up guns when not being used for their militia purpose "defeats one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment?"