Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Florida: Man shot dead at Edison Mall [View all]My allies:
"The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC," Obama said. "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions cant initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isnt born out by our Constitution."
Obama often boasts, in his stump speeches, that he would be a President who understands the Constitution because he has taught the Constitution. Today a reporter asked for his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, which gun owners often cite in their arguments against gun control.
Obama said this: "Theres been a long standing argument by constitutional scholars about whether the second amendment referred simply to militias or it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation. So I think theres a lot of room before you getting bumping against a constitutional barrier for us to institute some of the common-sense gun laws that I just spoke about."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/02/obama-common-se/
Obama often boasts, in his stump speeches, that he would be a President who understands the Constitution because he has taught the Constitution. Today a reporter asked for his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, which gun owners often cite in their arguments against gun control.
Obama said this: "Theres been a long standing argument by constitutional scholars about whether the second amendment referred simply to militias or it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation. So I think theres a lot of room before you getting bumping against a constitutional barrier for us to institute some of the common-sense gun laws that I just spoke about."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/02/obama-common-se/
Yours:
Well if I posted what I should post it's just not worth the rule violation.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
197 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I was there last night to pick my mother up from last minute Christmas shopping.
William769
Dec 2011
#1
They had virtually the same gun homicide rate *before* substantive gun control
X_Digger
Dec 2011
#15
"...Japanese reporting - but imagine it'd still be much lower than ours." And you'd be wrong.
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#23
"I think the definition should be left to people who actually know what they are talking about"
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#59
Apparently so. Our *non* gun homicide rate strips most european countries *total* homicide rates. nt
X_Digger
Dec 2011
#32
"If you wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, you'd just use a common object"
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#60
"There is no doubt that fewer firearms in circulation will mean fewer deaths."
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#120
"I'll live with the higher crime rate so that I can enjoy the right to own firearms as I will."
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#139
So I guess when the Constitution says "the people" they don't mean individuals...
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#191
You're not making sense now.. nobody said 'the people' in any of the previous replies..
X_Digger
Dec 2011
#193
When you misrepresent the words of other posters , thats what you get hereabouts, concerned people.
beevul
Dec 2011
#190
What would one need a 30 round magazine for realistically that's a legitimate use?
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#14
Unless one prefers that criminals be forced to reload, banning them is rather pointless.
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2011
#20
Answer me this: What do you think is an adequate mag capacity to repeal a dangerous person?
aikoaiko
Dec 2011
#27
I see you don't like your own math. You are fine with 12 rounds for a single intruder,
aikoaiko
Dec 2011
#36
It wasn't GWB that did much for the RKBA. It was individual states and the SCOTUS who did the most.
aikoaiko
Dec 2011
#81
"And the toothpaste is out of the tube for the guns & magazines previously covered by the so-called"
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#57
Grenade launchers are legal too. It is the grenades that are controlled. N/T
GreenStormCloud
Dec 2011
#70
A better question would be, why does only one special weapons element of a single miltiary
AtheistCrusader
Dec 2011
#172
They're agricultural implements, regulated by burn codes. Not the NFA or firearms law.
X_Digger
Dec 2011
#130
"militia... trained up to military standard quickly?" That means full-auto, right? nt
SteveW
Dec 2011
#170
And everytime I read posts such as the ones that profligate around here I think of...
ellisonz
Dec 2011
#45
No, anyone with a reasonable knowledge of history and the ability to spell "Google"....
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#115
Profligate doesn't mean what you think it means. Perhaps you intended "propagate"?
Fair Witness
Dec 2011
#136