But, considering the source, not unexpected...

Give the dems a 12-16 year run and you'll see it.
It starts with an assault weapons ban, then concealed carry ban, then a handgun ban, leading up to a clean finish with the ban of anything semi auto.

__________________
Are you a spineless slave to political correctness?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

It's not that farfetched - the guy who appears to be about to become the party's presidential nominee is already on record wanting to pre-empt all state civilian CCW laws with a federal ban, and also calling for a ban on all semi-autos.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

It is pretty far fetched.

We all know that statements made early in a primary campaign have little to do with the actions that a candidate will take, or with what he/she will say in his/her general campaign. We also know that Democratic candidates need to make some anti-gun statements in order to appease a significant portion of their core constituency, just like Republican candidates need to make pro-"morals" statements in order to appease theirs.

Nothing that Obama has said constitutes a real threat, except maybe (and only maybe) to those that take the 2nd Amendment to the absolute extreme.

And, of course, public support for increased gun control is growing. Obama's views seem to be fairly popular with most Americans, especially those who would consider voting for him.

US support for gun control rises | csmonitor.com

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I consider his positions to be a very problematic, since he's talking about arbitrarily depriving me of my ability to protect myself and my family and further advocating depriving millions of law abiding gun owners of billions of dollars worth of property.

And, frankly, I think his position that he knows better than 80% of the state legislatures about CCW is arrogant in the extreme.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I know, but guns are a (pardon the pun) hair-trigger issue for you. IMHO, and as a fellow gun owner, I think that you're overreacting.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Do you find a ban on all semi-autos reasonable?

How about all civilian ccw?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

No. But, I don't think that either of those are reasonable occurances in the foreseeable future, no matter which of the 3 candidates is POTUS.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

yes, and of course the slippery slope never eixsts when its a progressive platform....

if you had told someone 25 years ago, they could not smoke in a bar, or in some cases, in their own apt. or on the side walk of a town, they would have told you, you were mad.

Oh and of course a city having their police confiscating guns from rightful and legal owners when they needed them most...... naaaaah, won't happen.

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

I recently sent an e-mail to President Bush, and you KNOW I got an automated response. Considering that Bush seems to not really worry about what people think of his very public stances on issues, an automated response from the WH doesn't seem to indicate a reticence to answer. Only an inability to keep up on the volume.
I figure anything sent to Clinton or McCain would get the same response as with Obama.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

far fetched????? I think not. Ask any liberal lawmaker what he'd like to see concerning firearms.

__________________
Are you a spineless slave to political correctness?

This is a perfect example. Smoking bans were actually put on the ballot in cities and passed by the voters. Same goes for CCW's.

A president can easily have a stance on a particular issue and know full well it would never get through Congress.

__________________
I want to change the world but they won't give me the source code.

I've seen Obama waffling on the Concealed Carry Permit issue for awhile. When travelling the rural areas, he and his wife finally got a wakeup call how important guns are culturally speaking and even defence-wise speaking. In the cities, handguns have a different experience. Yet, he hasn't officially changed his mind.

If I ever had the chance to ask Obama anything, it would be on this issue. I think he's dead wrong on it. It obviously comes from the urban gun crime problems. But, even as an urban crime initiative, a ban on concealed carry laws is, IMO, based on flawed logic insofar as a remedy.

For example, I wonder what he'd say, being biracial, about the following:

1) Would James Meredith, the civil rights marcher, been better off with a concealed handgun when bigots went to shoot him down on his lone marches?

2) Would James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, been better off with concealed handguns when Klansmen decided to seize them in their vehicle and then shoot them all?

3) How about all sorts of other blacks who were regularly terrorised by Klansmen and other bigots, including the lynchers?

etc. etc, etc.

Blacks were regularly deprived of firearms both before and after the Civil War. White slaveowners and white supremacists knew that disarming blacks allowed them to get away with slavery, Jim Crow, etc.

The US and Ireland did not get their freedom due to the eloquent words their heroes spoke. Many of those words were spoken on the gallows because their oppressors and enemies cared not for their words but the power they used to subjugate them. They got their freedom from guns. Tyrants like Hitler and others wanted guns over those they wished to subjugate and exterminate. It was guns that have defeated them.

Whether on an international, national or local level, the same patterns run true--all oppressors and ill-doers want any and all advantage over their prey in order to succeed.

Tyrants take the guns away from the people in order to subjugate them. Criminals and ill-wishers seek guns and wish their prey do not have them.

No criminal is going to care about a ban on concealed carry. They are criminals and carry them anyway. They hope, however, that those they prey upon no longer have them.

Guns are only as good or bad as the hands that hold them. Taking them away from the good only leaves them in the hands of the bad, all the more harmful to the good.

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag

Maybe if black leaders in America weren't shot dead so frequently, they wouldn't fear guns so much.

Then again, you are the same person that believes it's irrational for people to fear a device that is created to instill fear in other people.