I'm trying to listen to the individual, but he's claiming one thing while supporting the exact opposite.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I'll believe that until he takes the stance that the federal government needs to address the issue.

And that time, I'm certain, is coming...

If responsible gun owners don't buy in bulk, then there's no reason for such a ban, because criminals won't pay attention to it anyway. All it does is keep those responsible gun owners from buying more than one gun a month...

And, as I alluded to above, I believe he will absolutely try to bring the issue to a federal level, despite his so-called belief that local governments are better suited to address the issue...

Sure, they can be. Obama seems to undeniably connect them, though...

Never been to St. Louis.

I've been to the South Bronx. I've been to Compton. There are people in those neighborhoods who carry semi-automatic weapons. No law banning them is going to make those disappear...

Surely if a gun malfunctions, and a person is injured during the proper use of the firearm, that's a separate issue.

What Obama wants to allow is the family of a gang-banger victim to go after the company that made the gun the gang-banger used. That's wrong. If I stab someone in the neck with a pen, should the victim be able to sue Bic?

I think his position is quite evident. He's on board with the long-standing liberal belief that if you make handguns illegal, there won't be shootings with handguns. That's idiotic.

I don't own a revolver. If semi-autos were illegal, I would not have been able to defend myself and my wife when we were threatened. I know, all to well, the value of concealed carry, and the value of a semi-automatic weapon. I used it legally, and I make no apologies for it...

I think Obama's 'problem,' if you will, is the urban-suburban v rural divide.

People in metropolises usually don't own guns. There is no hunting culture there, police are everywhere to make one feel 'safe' (deceptive, given they usually only respond after the fact), etc. What they usually see are daily newspapers and news shows showing scary hoods cop killing, murdering, robbing, carjacking, etc, and very often with guns. Metropolises have huge populations (thus more crime to report) and poor areas.

Thus, guns are seen as the deadly tools of criminals and nutcases and little more, the hunter with a rifle in the country excepted. If the news has a couple homicides or armed robberies to report, an area will a few million concentrated people will produce that. Ghettoes certainly produce crime too and not only does that make those areas anti-gun by the law abiding victims there but add in that they are also minority groups living there, it also scares the white suburbia, etc. Even rap gangsta music promotes this image of black hoods robbing, dealing and shooting. And guess what makes nice nightly news? Your local black murderer, armed robber, carjacker, etc.

Most of these types don't know much about guns and rural life, needs and culture. The stereotypes is that they are shitkickers and cowboys who love shooting and blasting everything and just looking for excuses to blast 'bad guys.'

There are plenty of machismo cowboyish 'pro-gun' types who really do a disservice to gun right advocacy with big mouths and hard-ons over ownership that fuel those stereotypes, even though it's all mouth or else they would even be allowed to have the guns or permits.

Pro-gun advocates are also often too doctrinaire on reasonable restrictions and concerns of the metropolis areas whilst anti-gun advocates from those areas often give good cause to gun advocates to be wary of them given so many are only looking for chipping away stepping stones to near or full abolition with no genuine compromise intended. A perfect area of concerning deadlock is the issue of 'strawman purchasing' problems, including matters like multiple quick and frequent purchases by such straw purchasers.

Obama spent more years in elected office than Hillary.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Oh, please stop! A community activitist with a few years as a state legislator, and a couple as a Senator (half of which has been spent campaigning). Best credentials in 50 years?

Oh stop please! Your going to make me pee in my paints!

tashi deleks,

M

__________________
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake, and they don't Think." -- Eeyore, The House At Pooh Corner

Sit like a mountain,
Breathe like the wind,
Mind like the Sky.

When all the Gods are crazy, who do you pray to?

That's fuckin' funny...

LOL!!! Yeah... let's...

Why do you guys even respond to these kind of threads?

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

I don't think there's any real hypocrisy fromt he right on how they're vetting Obama. They're sticking to their tired old tactics, which usually work best for Republicans: they trash him to death, from being a muslim, to attending a madrasa, to not being patriotic because he doesn't wear a flag pin every second of the day, to being an "elitist" which is now the second most demonized word next to "liberal" in America. As if being at the top in your field is wrong nowadays because it makes less intelligent people offended. How whack is that?

I don't think Obama has some of the best credentials of the last 50 years. He's never had to formulate a budget that was very significant. He's got valuable campaign wisdom and knowledge from his city-planning days, which apparently he was also very good at.

The Republicans are also playing the "he's not experienced enough" line, which is always one of the worst things you can do in a campaign because it reveals that you're aware of his charisma. Bush's credentials were pretty shabby, with no military experience, and failing at business time and time again. But he was a pretty decent governor, apparently more open to dissent and a variety of opinion than he was as President. I don't really know if that's hypocritical though. Governors have to set agendas and run budgets and all that, and Bush was chosen because people thought he was a fair and balanced center between his dad and Clinton. There was relative peace around the world, and Bush was simply supposed to oversee huge surpluses, while not rocking the boat in any other way. How could anyone have predicted that he'd make such a series of well-intentioned but wrongheaded decisions? That's the chance you take with voting for President.