Yeah, I can tell you that. You’re just guessing. I don’t see that Obama has ever made gun control much of an issue.
Obama did? Guess I missed that part.
Full disclosure: I don’t own a gun. Never owned a gun. Not really interested in guns. Wouldn’t really bother me if we got rid of the 2nd amendment, and just let the states/localities do as they pleased.
He mentioned it a couple of times during the election, though he didn’t come right out and explicitly state anything. I think it was more red meat being tossed to the faithful, since it was really coded for them…and, as with the Republican faithful and abortion, I think he meant it to be taken just as seriously by the general voters. Which is to say, not at all.
To be sure. But, would you feel the same about it if it was something you cared about? How about Freedom of Speech, say? What if we decided to toss that one out and left it to the local states to decide? Or Freedom of Religion? What if we just tossed that out and left it up to the local states to decide what they thought was right?
I’m all for states rights and the local people being able to decide what’s best for them at the local level, but there are limits.
-XT
I think the 2nd amendment is an anachronism. Maybe not as anachronistic as the bit about quartering troops, but still one of those things that probably seemed very important at the time, and not so much now. First amendment is a whole 'nuther thing-- we’ll always need that.
I don’t have to guess to know that Holder said less than a week following the inauguration, the following:
That is, I guess he said that.
Now, I know that this topic arouses strong feelings on the subject, but it wouldn’t hurt to look at the citations I linked to from time to time. Both of those came from the OP.
Maybe it’s because gun control is really a topic few care about unless there’s nothing else to worry about.
Alternatively, you could actually put relevant quotes in your OP so people don’t have to wade trough all the stuff in multiple links. 
Still, that seems like small potatoes compared to the big-ass problems he has to deal with.
shrug We’ll have to agree to disagree then, as on other subjects. Personally, I think it’s still quite relevant, considering the large percentage of the population who still wishes to keep and bear arms…and who want this ability to be protected from the same fates they see having happened in other countries to gun owners. To me it’s got the same relevance as the other protected Freedoms.
My own full disclosure: I also do not own a gun, nor do I plan to buy one in the foreseeable future. To me it’s an abstract subject, but still important, and I defend it the same way I would defend against people trying to ban dwarf midget porn or infringe on the rights of citizens to worship in their own ways (being an agnostic, this is another subject that is purely academic to me).
-XT
It’s not important at all. It’s an anachronistic flaw in the Constitution which needs to be protected to avoid any precedent for tampering with the Bill of Rights, but the right itself is not an important one. Practically speaking, it’s intractable, but it’s not important. the average person does not need a gun, and would not be harmed by not being allowed any access to them.
I’d have no problem with an updated version, not based on the whole militia thing. Sounds like something out of Iraq.
Sure, I would too…one that is a bit more clearly written would be nice as well. In fact, I’d prefer that if the gun control types REALLY want to change things, that they should go about doing it by amending the Amendment, instead of the dishonest way they have attempted to do it in the past. If it really IS an ‘anachronistic flaw’, as DtC (an unbiased source if ever there was one on this subject) puts it, then the right thing to do is to change or do away with the Amendment. That’s how the system was set up after all, and there is precedence for revoking an Amendment.
Of course, trying to do so would run up against the fact that it’s not nearly as much of an anachronism as some people would like to think…
-XT
Given that the Brady Campaign gave Obama an “F” based on how much progress has been made toward the abolition of private firearm ownership, I’d give another vote to “and that’s bad how?”
Long term, the demographics are against the 2nd. As the nation becomes more urban, more progressive candidates will be elected. In 100 years, we’ll scrap it and think of the notion of having a “right” to own firearms as unthinkable as slavery is today.
I disagree only this far: I think the 2nd Amendment will still be intact, but very few people will own guns, especially handguns, simply because they don’t want to. Which is, ultimately, the only real way to go.
The left doesn’t this baggage, been saying it for years, but some guys seem to think we’re just saying “Nice doggy!” while we grope on the ground for a big rock. We’re just trying to lull them asleep and then we’ll call the Black Helicopters.
Its useless baggage, the left gives away points every election for this baggage. Now, in the case of Civil Rights, the Dems did the right thing, no question. That issue was worth losing votes over, it was worth giving up the South, in exchange for the future.
But not for this. Just not worth it.
Except that criminals will still have them.
80% of the country already lives in urban areas.
No they won’t. That’s a complete fallacy. If you control their manufacture and import, the crminals don’t get them.
Why doesn’t your same argument apply to hand grenades or flamethrowers, by the way?
And yet, in countries with gun control, criminals still DO manage to get guns. Why is that?
I’m sure that criminals COULD get them, if they really wanted too. Why would they want too, though? How would it help them in the execution of their crimes in a superior way to, say, a handgun?
-XT
Easier to aim, but not as specific.
Right…and higher body count and more horrific potential causalities. More apt to enrage the public and the authorities…neither circumstance is good for business, if one is a criminal, no?
Those weapons are good if one is fermenting a revolution or insurgency. If one wants to rob a 7-11, however, not so much.
-XT
Maybe if they’d control the manufacture and import of crack cocaine, criminals wouldn’t be able to get that, either… :rolleyes: