As long as it keeps the drive-bys down, I don’t mind gun control…

@Tom@revelife - Actually, gun crime goes up when guns are made illegal. The criminals will get them anyway.

Nice claim. Where’s your warrent?

Correlating drive me nuts.

@Tom@revelife - @anaraug - Hey, I just said as long as it does. It was more a hope than a statement of fact. Probably a better way to word it would be the way I thought I said it, which would be if. Don’t know why I typed it the other way…

I have a CCL and I’m not about to give my personal protection up. 

I’ll go to jail before I give up my personal security. Nobody is taking my 2nd amendment rights away from me. 

@UR_MUSE - Smart people who value their freedom are buying arms now while they still have the protection to do so under the legacy of 200+ years of enlightened democratic leadership. This door of opportunity will slam shut at at some point. Tyrants and horror are likely to follow.

You do Chicken Little proud.

Over the time in which Obama has been a Senator he has either voiced his support for or voted to enact laws to:

1. Ban all handguns
2. Ban the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic firearms
3. Ban the right to carry in every state, nationwide
4. Ban firearms in the home, even for self protection
5. He voted against a “self defense exception” which absolves people of violating  gun bans when their reason for violating those bans is to defend against a criminal attack in the home
6. In 1996 Obama’s Illinois state senate campaign indicated his support for a blanket ban on the manufacturing and sale of all handguns in Illinois
7. In 2000 Obama sponsered a “one gun a month” law in Illinois

Obama may claim, “I will protect the rights of hunters and other law abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for purposes of hunting and target shooting.” (quote taken from Obama’s website) However the Second Ammendment says, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” No where in the Second Ammendment does it say anything about hunting or target shooting.

Also keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the police are NOT obligated to protect us. Don’t believe me? Do the research for yourself.

With all of this in mind, we are now going to have a president that wants to blatantly ignore our U.S. Constitution, take guns out of law abiding citizen’s hands, and leave us defenseless for all criminals to pick us off one at a time. We all know that violent criminals are sure as hell not going to abide by any gun ban that Obama tries to have enacted.

With that said, I have my gun, I have a license to carry, and I will NEVER give up my right to bare arms without a fight.

@huginn - From the book “Dial 911 and Die”, attorney Richard W. Stevens writes:

“It was the most shocking thing I learned in law school. I was studying Torts in my first year at the University of San Diego School of Law, when I came upon the case of Hartzler v. City of San Jose. In that case I discovered the secret truth: the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Not only did the California courts hold to that rule, the California legislature had enacted a statute to make sure the courts couldn’t change the rule. But this doesn’t apply to just the wild, upside down world of Kalifornia. Stevens cites laws an cases for every state — plus Washington DC, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Canada – which reveal the same thing. If the police fail to protect you, even through sheer incompetence and negligence, don’t expect that you or your next of kin will be able to sue.

Even in the nation’s heartland, in bucolic Iowa, you can’t depend on 911. In 1987, two men broke into a family’s home, tied up the parents, slit the mother’s throat, raped the 16-year-old daughter, and drove off with the 12-year old daughter (whom they later murdered). The emergency dispatcher couldn’t be bothered with immediately sending police to chase the kidnappers/murders/rapists while the abducted little girl was still alive. First he had to take calls about a parking violation downtown and a complaint about harassing phone calls. When he got around to the kidnapping, he didn’t issue an all-points bulletin but instead told just one officer to come back to the police station, not even mentioning that it was an emergency. Even more blazing negligence ensued, but suffice it to say that when the remnants of the family sued the city and the police, their case was summarily dismissed before going to trial. The state appeals court upheld the decision, claiming that the authorities have no duty to protect individuals. Similarly, people in various states have been unable to successfully sue over the following situations:

when 911 systems have been shut down for maintenance
when a known stalker kills someone
when the police pull over but don’t arrest a drunk driver who runs over someone later that night
when a cop known to be violently unstable shoots a driver he pulled over for an inadequate muffler
when authorities know in advance of a plan to commit murder but do nothing to stop it
when parole boards free violent psychotics, including child rapist-murderers
when felons escape from prison and kill someone
when houses burn down because the fire department didn’t respond promptly
when children are beaten to death in foster homes

A minority of states do offer a tiny bit of hope. In eighteen states, citizens have successfully sued over failure to protect, but even here the grounds have been very narrow. Usually, the police and the victim must have had a prior “special relationship” (for example, the authorities must have promised protection to this specific individual in the past). And, not surprisingly, many of these states have issued contradictory court rulings, or a conflict exists between state law and the rulings of the courts. Don’t look to Constitution for help. “In its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,” Stevens writes, “the US Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”

Here’s the link to buy it at Amazon… I suggest you buy it and read it. http://www.amazon.com/Dial-911-Die-Richard-Stevens/dp/0964230445

@LadyValkyrie37 - Thank you for the effort in providing the citation and in producing the link.

Although, the topic is of some interest, the book title and cover just looks too corny. =P

@huginn - You should never judge a book by it’s cover… literally and figuratively.

Concerned? He has an extremely anti-2nd Amendment record.

@mileyfan08 - lol

I don’t think he will.  He will be too busy with other stuff, and there is too much opposition to more gun control.

I have heard it say that the boys who did the shooting at Columbine broke something like 14 or so gun laws.  Will more gun laws really help?

At least these manipulable, fanatical gun-lovers are pumping money into the economy.

Of course I’m concerned.
And Biden makes me more nervous than Obama.

I actually went and got my concealed carry permit at the first opportunity after he was elected and plan to buy a handgun before he’s sworn in.  It’s really something that I should have done 2 years ago, but this made me quit putting it off.

I guess it wont matter to me.  I’ll get concerned when they come out with a hello kitty gun that has hello kitty bullets.  That is when i am going to want a gun.  Until them i am good with my sling-shot!

No.

Obama supports the NRA.

no. not in the least bit. why should guns be easy to obtain?

Well, as a staunch supporter of the American Constitution, I believe in the right to keep and bear arms.

But this conceal-and-carry business is ridiculous. Concealed weapons are bad news.

How about, NO, since he’s firmly in support of second amendment rights for individuals.

JESUS.