The media is just carrying water for Obama. For anyone to believe that this man will do anything positive in light of the Second Ammendment is sad. For him, the only ones who should have firearms are cops and soldiers. And why not, he’s surrounded by them (his entire street blocked off, anyone entering it needing to be stopped and searched). So how about those of us who might need to protect ourself? I guess “Hope and Change” doesn’t cover that.
I know you’re very pro-gun, and i respect that. Gun control has never been an issue that i’m extremely passionate about, so i’m not trying to start a fight. But maybe you can explain a few things to me. You’ve probably seen the quote from Obama that Southpol posted in response to your post, but i’ll post it again for anybody who didn’t get to read it:
Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
Now i’m sure you don’t really believe anything Obama says, so let’s pretend that quote didn’t come from him. Let’s say it came from me. What about that position do you object to? Gun violence is a huge problem in major urban areas and something needs to be done, but i don’t see why a solution inherently has to infringe upon your right to protect your family.
Here’s a hypothetical situation: Back in 2000, Obama supported a law that would limit gun purchases to one a month which didn’t end up passing. Let’s say a law was proposed that would limit gun purchases to two a month, and it had the potential to lower gun violence by 35% (it’s hypothetical, so just go with it). Could you get behind a law like that, even begrudgingly? Sure, technically speaking it would hamper a person looking to keep his family safe, but only in the sense that it would take a little longer to purchase enough guns so you were never more than an arms length away from one in your house. At the same time, a 35% drop is pretty substantial. Would you be willing to wait a little longer to buy another gun if it meant that less people were getting killed?
I guess my real question is, as a gun owner, are there any measures for dealing with the flood of guns on the streets that you could actually support?
1 year ago