Obama: "2nd Amendment (is) an individual right"

[ieoeja]

I FINALLY get to vote for a Democratic president who is not being intellectually dishonest on this subject. I hoped to vote for Howard Dean last GE for that reason. If you want to argue against the 2nd Amendment, fine.

But don't pretend that the same people who wrote "the right of the people" in several amendments in the same time period for some really odd reason meant something completely different on this one and only one occasion. You have to have a real problem with logic, or reality, to believe that.

Source for the quote: http://www.fieldandstream.com/article/Hunting/Special-Report-An-Exclusive-Interview-with-Senator-Barack-Obama

[Egnever]

1. Me too!

I know the second amendment isnt that popular here but I am glad we have a candidate this time that gets it.

[billyoc]

2. It's popular with me!

:hi:

[Thothmes]

18. Maybe I am sinical but

would he have made such a definitive statement if there had not been a very strongly worded Supreme Court decision on that issue. I some how do not think so.

[mikelgb]

21. call me sinical but people who can't spell cynical

shouldn't go making such assertions

[ieoeja]

25. He had made that same statement BEFORE the Supreme Court ruling. n/t

[Thothmes]

27. Link?

[ieoeja]

33. Link from February 15th

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQTAS80&show_article=1


Supreme Court ruling was in June.

[Thothmes]

75. Thanks,

Any links to his thoughts on the subject while in the Illinois Legislature, or in the U.S. Senate before he started running for the Presidency.

[IndianaJones]

3. he is correct and this is a very good thing. nt.

[GodlessBiker]

4. I'm a Second Amendment supporter because it allows us to protect ourselves against our gov't.

[Egnever]

6. I feel exactly the same

I had guns in my house as a child but i have never owned one as an adult. I just don't like them they scare me. That said I want that right there in case there ever comes a time I need to defend myself and my neighbors from my government.

[GodlessBiker]

12. Yes. I don't own a gun either but I want the right to get one if I deem it necessary.

[olkaz]

15. You realize, of course:

A. That wasn't the intention of the framers whatsoever; and

B. That no amount of ammunition and firearms (owned by civilians) could do much of anything against our government.

I support the second amendment wholeheartedly, but this angle on it always seems to come from the survivalist guys (omg bilderberg and the nwo! those guys), not from DU'ers, so this strikes me as odd.

[iiibbb]

22. It depends...

... A gov't that is egregious enough may not have the support of the entire military... at which point we actually could do things against our gov't.

[olkaz]

31. That's a huge "depends"

In a situation like that, we'd probably be in just as much risk from the independent military. Who's to say that they wouldn't want to take power for themselves?

Anyway, like I said, the idea of the common American raising arms against the government in any sort of effective way is dated. We are a conquered people.

[iiibbb]

59. I don't agree... at the end of the day we outnumber them.

Now... the likelyhood that a gov't is so bad that the populace will rise against them... that's another story.

We're all vested in the economy... that's what we're prisoners of.

[olkaz]

78. We'd outnumber them in corpses, that's for sure.

Seriously. They have all the toys. Game over.

[dmallind]

87. So how do teh Iraqis manage to keep killing the same army with relative impunity? NT

[old mark]

88. An armed population is a defense against government,

whether successful or longstanding is another matter, but look at Mexico as an example ; they have periodic uprisinga against their government by armed civilians. It may not overthrow the government, but I guarantt you it certainly is on their minds every day.
ALSO:
In Switzerland, one of the most stable governments on earth, EVERY male and many female citizen of military age (through age 50, I believe) is armed - they are members of the reserve military and keep their equipment - including weapons and ammunition - at home.
No blood on the streets there, either.

mark

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. It wasn't?

Two words: American Revolution. You think that the right of individual posession of arms was really something that was in dispute at the time? Or that the right of the people to defend themselves against an oppressive government, if need be, was questioned either?

Not to mention that the framers of the Constitution were coming from a background of centuries of English common law; the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes the right to bear arms (for Protestants, and 'appropriate to their station'...in the 17th century, the wearing of a sword was reserved to gentlemen, so in a sense the unrestricted right to bear arms in the US Constitution represents a radical rejection of the British class system and an unprecedented, for the time, statement of equality before law).

[Egnever]

81. um they seemed to do a pretty good job of it in iraq,

just sayin

[susanwy]

79. Absoluty Right!

:bounce:

[leftynyc]

5. Good for Obama

I'm and second amendment supporter who is sick of this issue messing up the Dems.

[RedLetterRev]

7. I'm for all 10 Amendments and that includes the Second

and I'm glad President-elect Obama came out in clear terms.

We have to defend all ten or we'll continue to lose them one by one. Without the other 9, the Second won't mean a damn.

[Essene]

8. 2nd amendment was not about individual rights. It was common law at the time. Silly issue.

[GodlessBiker]

13. Can't common law be about individual rights?

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Do you know what is meant by "common law"?

Just wondering.

[GodlessBiker]

38. Yes. It's the law as laid down by courts, not by legislatures.

[jody]

67. Not exactly, see S.397 below

Senate bill 397 passed the Senate 65 – 31 and passed the House 283 – 144. The bill said:

QUOTE
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
UNQUOTE

The bill was signed 26 Oct 05 and became Public Law No: 109-092.

[Essene]

46. my point is twofold: 1) there was no need for such an amendment 2) it was about a standing army

Any objective reading of the debates at the time shows the 2nd amendment really was about whether there should be reliance on a central standing army, as opposed to reliance on state/local based militia.

THERE WAS NO DEBATE over the individual right to bear arms. It was assumed.

It was common law.

Personally, i wish the supreme court had the guts to admit that, and to just say it was implied within the rationale for the 2nd amendment... that the right to bear arms drove the rationale for establishment of "well regulated" militia.

It's a moot point now...

[jody]

69. If individual RKBA is nor protected by the 2nd as you say, it is clearly protected by the 9th.

The Constitution of Virginia; 29 June 1776

PA Constitution adopted on 28 Sep 1776 before it ratified our Constitution on 12 December 1787 said:

That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right to bear arms for self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR.

PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

Either the natural, inherent, inalienable rights enumerated in PA’s constitution of 1776 are protected by those enumerated in our Constitution or they are protected by the Ninth Amendment.

[ieoeja]

16. Which of the other 9 Bill of Rights are not about Rights?

And why did they call it a Bill of Rights instead of a Bill of Common Law?

[Essene]

48. Protection from abusive consolidation of power - 1st (establishment clause), 2nd, 3rd, 10th...

[robcon]

9. Chuck Schumer had a good line on this.

Paraphrasing... Those who would try to narrow the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment to mean almost nothing are some of the same ones who are expansive (and rightly so) on the meaning of the 1st amendment.

Can't have one without the other.

[bushisanidiot]

10. I fully support Obama on this stance!!

.

[Jack Bone]

11. Thanx for the post & the link! K&R..n/t

[olkaz]

14. Big time support for this from me and mine.

I hope that quote goes far and wide.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. "The right of the people" is a collective, not individual, statement.

The Constitution clearly specifies "persons" when it is talking about individual rights. It just as clearly is referring to the collective citizenry when it speaks of "the people".

That said, I believe the interpretation is incorrect, and if we want to have gun ownership delineated as an individual right then the 2nd should be amended to clearly say so, splitting the troublesome run-on sentence into two distinct parts -

a) A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
b) The right of persons (or citizens) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That would eliminate ALL argument.

[MH1]

19. Not "infringed" at all?

What comes under the definition of "arms" that citizens are allowed to bear?

Depending on the answer to these questions, I could be wholeheartedly pro- second amendment as individual right, too. Or not, if other answers are given.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. My personal belief is that military hardware should be excluded.

The simple truth is my owning an M-60 machine gun is going to no more prevent government oppression than my owning a bolt-action rifle. The 1st and 4th amendments are FAR more important to harnessing an out of control government than the 2nd ever will be. The ONLY way the 2nd can make a difference is in allowing well-regulated state militias which are fully equipped with modern military hardware as a potential counter to federal power. These, of course, no longer exist since they've been effectively federalized and are now part of the federal military.

Non-military weapons should be perfectly adequate for sporting and personal defense purposes.

But that is all actually beside the point I was making - that the 2nd, as it is written, does NOT guarantee an individual right, but only a collective right.

As another poster, above, pointed out the individual right was a given under common law. The British, when occupying the colonies immediately prior to the revolution, did not go around confiscating individual weapons from British subjects because there was no prohibition on owning weapons - they did, however, regularly seize stockpiles of weapons and powder that were collectively held by unorganized militias. That's what the April 14th Concord/Lexington operation was about - seizing a militia arsenal because MILITIA's were banned, not guns.

[ieoeja]

24. Read 'em and weep.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Read it again. EVERY one of those is a defined collective right.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,"

How often do you assemble by yourself?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons,"

Why, if this is individual, would it say "in their persons"? It specifies the narrowing of scope from "people" to "persons", extrapolating a personal right from the larger right of "the people".

"...others retained by the people." Again, there is nothing in this that says individuals, but speaks of the collective citizenry.

"...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Ditto.

ON THE OTHER HAND

Amendment V

No PERSON shall be held to answer...Nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense...to be a witness against HIMSELF...

Clearly, spells out INDIVIDUAL rights. It doesn't say "the people shall not be held to answer..."

Amendment VI

...the ACCUSED shall enjoy the right...witnesses against HIM...witnesses in HIS favor...counsel for HIS defense.

Clearly, spells out INDIVIDUAL rights. It doesn't say "the people shall enjoy...".

There is CLEAR delineation between collective rights of the citizenry, as in the right of the people to keep and bear arms (as part of a well-regulated militia), and individual rights. And THAT was how the constitution was interpreted for 150 years.

And don't forget, when the Constitution opened with "WE THE PEOPLE" it did not apply to just the 40 individuals who signed it. "The people" ALWAYS refers to the collective citizenry throughout the Constitution.

[robcon]

34. You don't know when to give up, NCevilDUer.

When your premise is shot to hell with four counter-examples, you don't retreat, but you back off on your definition of 'people' vs. 'persons.'

It really is a pathetic argument.

[ieoeja]

37. You just said the police can search an individual's home without a warrant.

So what do you mean by a collective right? Something publicly owned? So the feds can not search town hall without a warrant, but they can search my house anytime they want since my house is individually owned?

I will salute you. This is only the second time I have ever encountered a person that insisted that NONE of the Bill of Rights applied to individuals.

You are at least consistent. Frightening (a world without civil rights), but consistent. I am very thankful no public officials agree with your notions on the Bill of Rights.

Come to think of it, it may have been you the other time. I don't get in the gun debates, but have tipped a toe in once or twice. And it was on DU where I had the only other encounter.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. READ WHAT I FUCKING WROTE

Don't make shit up about what I said.

4th amendment: The people - read that as "the citizenry" have a right to be secure in their persons - as individuals - It makes its OWN delineation.

Any place where the constitution says "the people" you could pop that out and insert "the citizenry". You cannot claim the word 'citizenry' = individual; it is a plural reference. OTOH, where it addresses individual rights you could take out whichever word - person, accused, whatever - and insert 'citizen' and not change the meaning on the sentence.

I made it CLEAR that those examples I listed ARE individual rights.

YOU ARE MAKING SHIT UP to jump through hoops to make the 2nd say what it does not say.

And, as I said before in agreement with another poster above, the INDIVIDUAL right to keeping arms was accepted in common law - therefore it was not addressed in the constitution.

So while I essentially AGREE with the right to keep and bear arm, the 2nd Amendment does NOT define that as an individual right. The words just don't say it.

[slackmaster]

45. What if your person is not at home when the cops show up to search it?

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. .

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

40. Persons and houses are not the same thing, NC

You're really reaching on this one.

[Bake]

50. Why, then, are certain searches and seizures of INDIVIDUALS thrown out

when those INDIVIDUALS are arrested and/or tried for crimes?

The police don't do illegal searches of "the collective people." They bust into YOUR house and go through YOUR stuff. They pat down INDIVIDUALS.

And by the way, what is a protest march, or a demonstration, but a group of INDIVIDUALS?

You're wrong.

Bake

[slackmaster]

39. Are you saying that the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches does NOT apply...

...to each and every individual?

That only the "collective citizenry" cannot have its homes searched without a warrant, or assets seized without due process?

:crazy:

[Spider Jerusalem]

43. Sorry, you're wrong

the Fourth Amendment says 'the people'; do you think that the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to security in one's property, is not an individual right?

[Statistical]

58. WTF????? Have you even read the Bill of Rights?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Are you honestly going to say with a straight face that "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th, & 10th ammendments is different than the 2nd amendment.

If it wasn't an individual right they WOULD NOT HAVE
1)used the word "the people"
2)included in in the BoR.

Instead they simply could have said this

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the state to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you don't like the second then repeal it.
Don't destroy the constitution by saying "the people" doesn't mean "the people".
If the people doesn't guarantee and individual right in the second, then you have given the goverment your acceptance that the people doesn't guarantee an individual right in the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th either.

If they can trample the 2nd, they can trample the 1st.

[RichardRay]

65. Reaction to recent SC ruling?

Should it be overturned? It was the first explicit decision on the topic in a long time, does it stand or does it get overturned in short order? If it stands long enough to have a few state laws based on it then you're going to have a tough time getting rid of it. Stare and all that...

[Kixel]

23. Good deal!

Being talked about in Field in Stream is fantastic!

It always amazes me that people pick and choose which part of the Constitution they support. It says I have the right to make decisions about my own body and the right to own a gun.

[meow2u3]

26. We have the right to use a weapon to defend ourselves

The 2nd Amendment mentioned a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms, which means the right to use a weapon to defend ourselves. It never mentioned which weapon we can use, be it a baseball bat, a stun gun, a knife, or a gun. Only the right wing twists the 2nd Amendment as a right for criminals and terrorists to use offensive weapons in commission of a crime (they just punish it afterwards, no prevention of crime necessary).

[Undercurrent]

28. I exercise my Second Amendment rights,

and all my other Constitutionally enumerated rights.

[jody]

29. In the interview Obama says he supports reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban not realizing that

H.R. 1022 cosponsored by 67 Democratic congresspersons gives the attorney general authority to ban such popular firearms as the Remington Model 1100 with over 4 million in use.



That's a major gaffe but it remains to be seen how many of the 54+ million gun-owners will believe Obama wants to ban such semiautomatic firearms.

That misstatement could be important in key states FL(27), PA(21), OH(20), MI(17) where some 70% or more of the congresspersons are rated A by pro-RKBA groups.

If one candidate sweeps them, it’s over.

[boppers]

61. How is the 1100 bannned in HR 1022?

I'm not seeing it specifically mentioned in the text, though there are a heck of a lot of other weapons mentioned... does the 1100 have a popular after-market kit of some kind for bumping up the round capacity? Does it get sawed-off a lot?

[jody]

62. See DU link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7099788&mesg_id=7106603

[boppers]

84. Not seeing the 1100 listed there.

Is the point that *discretion* would be granted to a state as to what would be "valid weapon use"... is that an issue?

[jody]

86. The 1100 is included in the group of firearms that can be banned under that section. n/t

[sampsonblk]

35. I dissent

I don't think the Second Amendment is about an individual right at all, and I don't think Obama believes that either.

But as long as Obama keeps repeating this, its probably a net gain for him at the polls in November. No one (that I know of) is going to vote against him because he said thist. But there are plenty of people who would vote against him if he said the opposite.

That's my view.

[jody]

36. Did you think carefully before writing "I don't think Obama believes that"? n/t

[sampsonblk]

71. Yes, I did.

I honestly think that he is smarter than that, being a professor of con law.

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. Obama was a professor of Constitutional law. I see no reason to doubt he believes what he says.

[sampsonblk]

73. Being a professor makes him more honest?-nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

76. It makes him more likely to understand the Constitution than you, apparently

Since every OTHER right enumerated is INDIVIDUAL, and NOT collective, why would the Second Amendment be any different? Especially since it is very similar to the provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which says 'the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law'. The Revolution was partly about Americans asserting 'the rights of Englishmen' which they felt were being usurped by the British government of the time; why on earth would they proceed to usurp one of those rights themselves? Can you explain your position in a rational and cogent manner which takes into account the historical context?

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. I agree.

I think the 2nd should be re-written to clarify the individual right which is alluded to in the support of militias, which is what the second is really talking about.

As Article 1 section 8 specifies the Congress's responsibility, it is:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Milita according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

If there is a citizen's militia, that IS "the people" excercising the right to keep and bear arms, as a bulwark against the tyranny of the state. It may have been a given, in common law, that individuals had a right to weapons but the 2nd Amendment does not address that.

[sampsonblk]

74. I agree with you on both points-nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

77. There IS a citizen militia.

Title 10, section 311, of the United States Code defines the militia as consisting of all able-bodied males aged 17 to 45.

[Statistical]

60. So he is a liar?

Wow. :(

[closeupready]

41. I completely agree with him on this.

Gobama.

[TheKentuckian]

49. A lot of Democrats are off base in a couple of ways

1. The right to bear arms is enumerated. There is no debate, if you have an argument then you want an amendment to the Constitution. I'd go so far to even say that the 2nd Amendment pretty much alludes to the RESPONSIBILITY to bear arms for the purpose of a well regulated militia.
I think people confuse their dislike/hatred/fear of guns with what the law actually is.

2. A well armed populace is still very much the best deterrent to tyranny. How is it that the Afghans held off the Soviets and us? How did 4,100 American soldiers end up coming home in bodybags and tens of thousands injured in Iraq against a non-state threat. I feel many on our side of the aisle perpetuate a delusion to win points in a debate to see their desires in this are come true.
All around the world scantily armed and disorganized groups clearly can create a TON of trouble for even a superpower.

I for one would rather go down swinging, even in an Alamo type situation than to be defanged by dreamers, fascist, and cowards.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. The Afghans held off the soviets because we gave them

millions of dollars worth of military weaponry, not because they each had an AK in the closet. Iraqis inflicted as much damage on us as they have because of the thousands of tons of Saddam's military grade weaponry left lying around for years, not because they each had an AK in the closet.

And even with that weaponry, both the Afghans and the Iraqis have lost literally millions of people in the fight, compared to the thousands lost be either us or the Soviets.

A right to keep and bear arms is NO defense against a modern military. Except in adolescent daydreams.

[WindRiverMan]

54. I have to disagree

Guerilla warfare has proven to be highly effective against modern military forces. It's even better when outside countries add more firepower. I believe you are correct in that a group of guys with deer rifles would stand no chance against a modern army toe to toe. However, those same guys scattered around sniping can cause complete pandamonium.

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. It has proven annoying, not effective.

I would certainly not call taking casualties at 100-1 or worse "effective".

No guerilla army has EVER won a war.

[WindRiverMan]

56. Nope never "WON" a war

but certianly have outlasted a conventional army in many countries. It has been used by everyone from Pancho Villa to the Kurds in Iraq. It's being done now in Iraq. Traditional armies have a hard time dealing with guerrila warfare.

[jody]

64. The extended Pashtun tribes (28 million Pakistan, 13 million Afghanistan) are the primary ethnic

group in the Taliban.

They've been defeating invaders for a long time.

[Spider Jerusalem]

80. Tell that to the Viet Cong

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. The viet cong got their asses kicked in EVERY fight.

Without the Soviet and Chinese arms, and NVA personnel support they'd have been wiped out.

We were NOT defeated by the fucking viet cong. The viet cong were not driving tanks and flying migs.

Do you have any understanding of history at all?

[Spider Jerusalem]

83. Do you?

Do you know how a guerilla army actually WINS? By forcing the other side to give up the fight. Do that, you've won. That's the goal,that's the objective. I'd suggest you read TE Lawrence on the principles of guerilla warfare and the aims and objectives of same.

[quaker bill]

70. Whatever

The Iraqi army was far better armed than the American public will ever be allowed to be. They posed extremely little and very ineffective resistance. They took off their uniforms and ran because they did not want to surely and promptly die.

The notion that the weapons the American public are allowed to possess is even the remotest deterrent to tyranny is a gun show dealers sales pitch and utter delusion. One could make "trouble", at least for a little bit, then surely die.

As to your notion of an obligation, I would vastly prefer to go to prison for refusal to bear a weapon than ever carry one.

[WindRiverMan]

52. I agree with him. Only dictators have martial law.

I am so glad that the Supreme Court finally stated that the right to bear arms is an individual right like all of the others in the Bill of Rights.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

63. Montana, West Virginia, and Missouri are play...

Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania just got a whole lot bluer.

[Fighting Donkey]

66. I love pro-gun Democrats.

[quaker bill]

68. Right or wrong

there is no reason to fight this. One can and many have made compelling arguments against the individual right, and lost elections. I do not and will not ever own a firearm on plainly held moral grounds, but there are far bigger fish to fry this cycle.

[anonymous171]

72. The 2nd Amendment is just as important as every other Amendment.

I'm glad Obama realizes this.

[TheKentuckian]

85. I think some just wish to make excuses for why they will cower

and roll over. That they will knuckle under to the powers that be, and to cover their lack of conviction they wish to cuff everyone. They wish to be inarguably under the thumb of the man, their decision already made.

I'm not talking 30 odd sixes and bolt action rifles. Assault weapons, hollowtipped and jacketed ammo. Heavy armor and aircraft will come from defectors and "enemy nations" looking to cause trouble.
This is our country and it is our obligation to hold on to it and failing that to take it back. I don't see how you get around this very serious responsibility.
Citizenship is a responsibility.