Interesting read in the Daily Beast...

[virginia mountainman]

That also backs up what I have been saying for YEARS about the Gun Control movement reaping the seeds they sown....

If Obama starts talking about gun control, however, they may begin to believe the NRA’s dire warnings. And the impact will be felt not just in the presidential race. It will hurt Democrats all the way down the ballot. Recall that when the Newt Gingrich–led Republicans seized control of the House in 1994, President Bill Clinton blamed the gun-control laws he himself had pushed through during his first two years in office. Obama’s talking about guns would be a disaster for Democrats and—necessarily—for the prospects of new gun control.

The most likely result of Obama focusing on gun control would be, ironically, less gun control..

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/06/bloomberg-s-gun-control-ad-is-the-wrong-move-for-obama.html

People, you need to remember, that most of the "movers and shakers" of the gun control movement, are Republicans

[Hoyt]

1. Would you vote for a right winger to save your guns?

[mvccd1000]

2. Would you vote for a right winger to save your rights?

For most, it's not about saving the gun; it's about saving civil rights.

I would have a hard time voting for a representative who wants to curtail ANY of my rights, whether they be the right to smoke what I want, the right to marry who I want, or the right to carry where I want.

Any reason the Democrats SHOULDN'T be the ones protecting our rights?

[Hoyt]

3. Guns are not a "civil right." Look it up. And thanks for the standard "gun culture" response.

[oneshooter]

4. And thank you for the "Hoyt's answer #164".

Your answers never change. Saves you from having to think about them.

[Lurks Often]

5. Too bad for you that

that legislators around the country, the courts, both State & Federal and both the US and various state constitutions all disagree with you.

[mvccd1000]

6. Perhaps it's a "standard response" because so many people respond that way.

Most Americans DO believe in the right to self-defense, regardless of the opposing views of a fringe minority.

[liberal_biker]

7. Please explain how the right to be armed is not a civil right.

It is an enumerated, protected right recognized for ALL people in the Constitution. I fail to see how it could not be a civil right on the same level as the right to free speech, religion, etc.

If you have actual proof, rather than baseless assertions to the contrary, present it. Otherwise, you're merely pissing in the wind.

[petronius]

12. A distinction is often made between 'civil rights' and 'civil liberties,' and RKBA

more accurately falls under the latter. I suspect that in conversations like this, saying that guns aren't a civil right is intended to minimize the validity of RKBA by ignoring the equivalent category (liberties) where the right really belongs. Here's a quick googled description - http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-vs-liberties.html - it doesn't mention RKBA, but notice what else it includes as a liberty.

In general conversation, the categories of 'civil rights' and 'civil liberties' are often blurred and combined, and I don't think making the distinction is hugely important unless you're discussing political theory (or engaged in a bit of linguistic sneakery)...

[DonP]

8. Defined in the BoR as a "right", check. Supported by the Supreme Court, check.

Incorporated with the states, check.

Confirmed as a right by our President, check.

Supported by a majority of the American people, check.

Sure sounds, looks and smells like a civil right to me.

But the truth is ... since the courts agree with our version, your opinion only matters to you and your coffee house Barrista. And he doesn't look all that interested either.

[Simo 1939_1940]

9. Check, and checkmate. NT

[liberal_biker]

10. 100% right.

However, as we see with some posters here, when it comes to gun control, facts do not really matter.

The biggest problem in the whole debate is those of us who support the RKBA are functioning from a perspective of facts and history, while the entire argument on the other side is emotion and fear. This is why when we point out that the 2nd Amendment protects the RKBA just as the 1st protects the right to read whatever the hell we want, we get mired in the discussions of "But books don't kill people".

I fear this discussion will never be resolved no matter what facts are presented. There have simply been too many people int his country who have been brainwashed to believe their fears justify the suppression of rights when it comes the physical manifestations of things they don't like.

[Simo 1939_1940]

11. I have a friend who while

working in a field which answers only to empirical evidence, is absolutely disinterested in evidence w/regard to the gun restriction issue. Another liberal married couple I know demand empirical evidence regarding the existence of God, but operate from a faith-based position on firearms. I have to agree with your (pessimistic) assessment w/regard to the future of this debate. Sad, really, that while ultimately Democrats will acknowledge that gun restriction is a political loser they will continue to see their cause as a "morally" righteous one -- despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

As a distinguished member of this forum points out - people are only human. (check is in the mail, rrneck) The gun rights issue has proven that Democrats are fully capable of operating with the same rigid ideology they attack their opponents for.