Obama Comes Out Against Concealed Carry of Firearms

[BigMike619]

Bear Arms!!!!

[Mad Mike]

Yeah, because people licensed to carry concealed are constantly shooting people. What a moron. :doh:

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5219765

In the wake of Monday's murderous rampage at Trolley Square, those questions again confront law-abiding members of a sometimes violent society.

But this time the massacre wasn't in Colorado or Texas or California. The question of whether a concealed weapon can make us and our loved ones safer is much closer to home.

"When things like this happen, some think maybe we ought to have no guns in society, and some think everyone should have one," said Steve Gunn, cq board member of Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. "It all depends on your perspective."

It appears as though off-duty Ogden police Officer Kenneth Hammond, who carried a concealed weapon, stopped the killing spree, said Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council.

Aposhian noted that it is impossible to know whether a concealed-weapon holder could make a difference in every violent confrontation.

"But we do know what happens when there is no one with a concealed weapon in these situations - people die."

[DarrellsMyHero28]

This has been an issue that I have turned over in my head for a long time but in the past year it has been something of serious concern to me.

I knew six people who were in Norris Hall on April 16th, three of them never left. Two of my good friends were in there, one was killed and the other is permanently scarred after being shot three times in the knee.

What would have happened had someone in one of those classrooms had a gun? Would they have been able to stop the shooting? It is certainly a possibility but as I am sure you all know by the massive amount of media coverage Virginia Tech does not allow guns on campus.

I am a Democrat first and foremost so that there is no confusion. However, I do not see guns as being evil and I believe the second amendment gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms. However, the second amendment says nothing about concealing arms so saying that this means Obama is against the second amendment is foolish. I do not believe that the "shall not be infringed" part means that any citizen can own any type of firearm and carry it wherever they want. I think that no citizen should be able to own an automatic weapon, there is no reason that I can see that anyone would ever need any type of machine gun or assault rifle. In my opinion this is a matter of common sense, no one needs an AK-47 to hunt deer or defend themselves. I think that banning large 19 round clips for handguns (which were used in the killings here at Virginia Tech and at NIU) is also reasonable. No one needs that many bullets to defend themselves. I don't see this as an infringement on anyone's rights; I see this as a matter of public safety.

I don't have an issue with concealed firearms in general. I do think that banning them in establishments that serve alcohol is a good idea because drinking and firearms are a dangerous combination even if the person owning the gun is a 'law abiding citizen.' The problem is, if your weapon is entirely concealed, by the definition of the word people will not be able to tell that you have it on your person which makes bringing these weapons into such establishments will be easy. However, if you are a person who spends alot of time in unsafe areas and you feel that you need a handgun to protect yourself, so be it.

I do think that every single person who purchases a gun should have to go through the stringent background check and mental health background check. I take serious issue with gun shows that allow for anyone to buy any type of gun without any type of background checks.

Is this a pain in your ass? Yes. Do I care? No.

Something must be done to stop mass shootings by the mentally ill. Persons who have serious mental issues or who have committed violent crimes should lose their right to purchase a firearm. If you are a sane, law-abiding citizen go ahead and buy a Glock, that doesn't bother me a bit.

Gun free zones have become a target for the criminally insane and some feel that allowing students to carry firearms will stop this. They argue that, even if no one is able to shoot and stop the person, the mere notion that students may be carrying guns will stop a person from committing the crime.

I see that point but I do take issue with several parts of it. First of all, allowing 18-22 year olds to carry guns while on and around a college campus is dangerous. Everyone knows that college kids drink and do stupid things and even sober college age guys get in fights. Add in a .45 and things can get nasty really quickly. My fear, despite the facts that Baculus has posted, is that simple fistfights could end up becoming shootings. I know that most normal people would never pull a gun on someone nor would a normal college age guy whip out a pistol over a beer pong game. That being said, its alot harder to kill someone with your fists and it only takes one pull of the trigger to end someone’s life. You can say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" all you want but the fact is, guns make it a hell of alot easier to kill.

Another issue I have is, unless there was a student with a gun in every single classroom the students won't be able to defend themselves if someone does decide to start shooting. In the New River Valley area (where Tech is located) about 4,000 people have a Concealed Handgun Permit, just slightly higher than the 2% for the entire state of Virginia. Virginia Tech has about 28,000 students so assuming that if handguns were allowed, the number of permits would be around the state average approximately 560 students would be packing heat in class. This isn't going to help at all, 560 students with guns makes it very unlikely that someone in the class has a gun. Better than nothing you say? I say that a better idea is to either increase the number of armed police officers or encourage professors to train in self-defense with a firearm, but we all know that’s not going to happen.

I want something to change, I want these shooting to stop but the answer never has been, nor will it ever be clear. I can only hope that certain changes can come about like an increase in background checks—but at the end of the day as long as we live in a free country such as this, there will be people who will have access to weapons who shouldn’t and innocent people will lose their lives.

This is the burden of freedom.

Hail

[BigMike619]

Nice post bro. I am sorry for your loss and understand your point.

[Zguy28]

Soooo.... did anybody actually go look up Obama's position and voting record on this?

Barack Obama on Gun Control

Democratic Jr Senator (IL)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Gun_Control

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok

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.

Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers

Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."

It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now.

Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality

"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair." Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions

• Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
  
• Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
  
• Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
  
• Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
  

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

• Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
  
• Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
  
• Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
  
• Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
  
• Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
  

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Before you read any further I suggest you get comfortable, make sure you have a drink and a snack because this is not going to be a short response....

On the original topic of this thread.....

Barrack Obama is simply repeating the same things that every politician (R & D) do nowadays on this issue. They'll tell the gun owners that they're friendly to guns and the gun grabbers that they're the exact opposite. Unfortunately the voting records of most of these people make it blatantly clear that they're no more the friend of the law abiding gun owner than Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin were. However, you can't campaign on that in Idaho or Mississipi because it's a losing philosophy in those places. Instead you have to pull something like the "Kerry-Duck" caper...

For those who don't remember Kerry went duck hunting in SC during the 2004 Presidential election season. No media were allowed to accompany the hunting party. When they returned several hours later John Kerry had several dead ducks in one hand and a shotgun in the other. The only problem for him... somebody asked if he'd actually shot them. He gave a very non-committal answer that the party had shot them and moved on. It didn't help him with most gun owners at all.

Likewise on the other hand, in places like Boston, New York City and LA you can't campaign on liking guns and win, so they have to claim to be in favor of local bans, increased enforcement, punitive actions againt gun manufacturers, etc... to win votes in those areas.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. None of these candidates has ever done anything significant FOR gun owners in this country. Hillary is definitely a dyed-in-the-wool anti-gunner. McCain is not strongly against gun control and Obama's comments make me believe he'd be right there with Hillary.

On the Concealed Carry vs. Open Carry issue.....

I am a law abiding gun owner. I happen to hold a Class "A" License to Carry Large Capacity Firearms in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and I do exercise my right to carry a concealed firearm on an almost daily basis.

The problem with open carry is the same problem that terrorists would have if they were forced to walk around with "Terrorist" printed on their foreheads... If people know what you are your effectiveness is significantly lessened. For example...

I walk into a small park on a Saturday afternoon intent on robbing and potentially doing bodily harm to a group of people with an illegally sawed-off shotgun hidden under my coat. I look around and don't see any cops or people with guns in plain sight...

If I live in an Open-Carry state I know that I can go on my shooting & looting spree pretty much with impunity.

If I live in a Concealed-Carry state I have to start wondering if the guy over there by the phone wearing the bomber jacket might have a Sig or S&W on his belt? Is that a cell phone or an Inside the Waistband Holster on the guy sitting reading that book? Is that the new Galco gun purse the lady over by the swingset has over her shoulder?

The whole idea of concealed carry is that it protects EVERYONE to some degree. Even those people NOT carrying guns, because the potential mugger, shooter, etc... doesn't know who does or doesn't have one. Whereas the open-carry gun owner can only protect themselves and their close associates with it because the bad guys can quickly tell who the Wolves are and who the sheep are around them.

Criminals are generally not brave individuals. They pick on the weak and those unable or unwilling to defend themselves. Open carry just helps them make that determination a whole lot more easily.

On the idea of Want vs. Need for defensive firearms....

We use a lot of tools in our everyday lives. Knives, lawnmowers, motor vehicles, shovels, etc... Many of them could be used for nefarious purposes if one wanted to. It's up to the morals and values of the individual whether they use them for those potential nefarious purposes or not. It works the same way with firearms. Guns are tools. They can be used for good or for bad purposes. The fact that I want a handgun is no more or less important than the fact that you may want a 600 hp sports car. You may not think I need that handgun. I may not thing you need that sports car. Both of them can be used for good or bad purposes. Both of them can kill.

Just one thing to remember.... by the time you NEED a firearm for defensive purposes it's too late to get one.

My philosophy on what guns American citizens should be allowed to own....

Anything that any law enforcement agency or agent in this country is allowed to own or carry

[wysknz1]

There is nothing "hardline" or "tough" about what Obama is saying. His position on gun control is perfectly moderate, mainstream, and constitutional.

Depends on where you're from.

[portisizzle]

I have a question.

I do not have a firearm in my house. More out of lack of interest than anything else.

So what are the reasons why someone would want to buy a handgun?

For fun? If so where do you go to practice shooting?

For protection? If so where do you get the education to use the weapon?

I am a conservative republican. So I have no problem with the second amendment. Just trying to get the reasons why someone buys a glock.....

[grego]

sorry- if bad people are going to carry guns legally, doing bad things with them, good people ought to legally be able to protect themselves against the bad ones. its only making it a bit more fair.

and you likely have nothig to fear from the legally carrying ones, you cant say the same for the others. i'll take those odds.

[wysknz1]

I have a question.

I do not have a firearm in my house. More out of lack of interest than anything else.

So what are the reasons why someone would want to buy a handgun?

For fun? If so where do you go to practice shooting?

For protection? If so where do you get the education to use the weapon?

I am a conservative republican. So I have no problem with the second amendment. Just trying to get the reasons why someone buys a glock.....

Man, I'm glad I live where I do.

[portisizzle]

Man, I'm glad I live where I do.

I guess in Wyoming you have to kill bear and stuff.......

[Mass_SkinsFan]

So what are the reasons why someone would want to buy a handgun?

For fun? If so where do you go to practice shooting?

For protection? If so where do you get the education to use the weapon?

Let's see, what are some of the uses that people I know own handguns for....

target shooting, plinking, home/business defense, personal protection, hunting, historical re-enactments, collections, family heirlooms, etc....

Target shooting is actually be an amazingly varied sporting endeavour. Pistols are used in this country for competitions from 50 meter bullseys to action shooting groups like: Steel Challenge, IDPA, IPSC, Cowboy Action Shooting, Cowboy Mounted Action Shooting and many others.

Plinking is basically enjoyment shooting. Going out to the range and punching holes in paper or bottles and cans or any of a number of other targets.

Historical Re-enactors and gun collectors have been adversely affected by many of the new firearms laws in many states. Likewise people who own family heirlooms may find themselves felons for what just a few years ago was a perfectly legal possession with significant emotional attachment.

There are some forms of hunting that can be and are done with handguns. Likewise hunters taking big game in country populated by predators like Grizzly Bears and Mountain Lions may want to carry a handgun for protection.

Originally the Constitution was going to say "Life, Liberty, and Property" instead of "...and the Pursuit of Happiness". I think that says all there is that needs to be discussed on whether or not the Founding Fathers felt that personal and home protection were appropriate uses for firearms, including handguns.

Training for the defensive use of firearms is not difficult to obtain at all. There are shooting schools and academies across the country and classes that range from basic self-defense with a firearm to intense, force-on-force simunition and 360 degree shoot house training are available to civilians who wish to seek it out. The NRA offers basic classes on defensive firearms use for very little money.

I

am a conservative republican. So I have no problem with the second amendment. Just trying to get the reasons why someone buys a glock.....

Nobody should buy a Glock (AKA Combat Tupperware) :laugh: but that's probably a more advanced discussion than what you really want, portsizzle.

[The 12th Commandment]

So what are the reasons why someone would want to buy a handgun?

For fun? If so where do you go to practice shooting?

For protection? If so where do you get the education to use the weapon?

I am a conservative republican. So I have no problem with the second amendment. Just trying to get the reasons why someone buys a glock.....

It's a fun hobby and most firearms are a good investment (or at least not very bad) It's useful for self defense. I can practice in the desert not far from my house. I know there's shooting range in Nova because I remember going to it with him when I was a kid. Any shooting range will have shooting lessons.

The second amendment is not partisan as far as I'm concerned. I'm a democrat and I have no problem with it either.

[Predicto]

I don't have a problem with the Second Amendment.

I have a problem with the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment, that any restriction on the ownership of weapons is not permitted. No other constitutional right is interpreted in this sweeping of a manner, not even the all powerful First Amendment. There are always limitations, liimitations consistent with the maintenance of the basic underlying right.

I agree that everyone has the constitutional right to own a gun or guns. I do not think that this means everyone has the constitutional right to own any kind of gun, or an unregistered gun, or carry a concealed weapon, or own armor piercing bullets or an undetectable plastic gun, or lots of other things.

You want to hunt and target shoot? Great. Get a rifle. I'm all for you.

You want to hunt and protect your home? Great. Get a shotgun. I'm all for you.

You want to defend yourself against tyranny? Get 2 rifles and a shotgun. Whatever.

But if you want a small, handheld weapon that you can sneak around to rob liquor stores, or whip out of your glove compartment when you get road rage, or that you can carry around quietly so that you feel all cool like Dirty Harry, then join the police force. Otherwise, I don't have your back on that one. And I'm not impressed by your constitutional argument to the contrary (though I fear that our current right-leaning Supreme Court is about to prove me wrong).

[Sarge]

I don't have a problem with the Second Amendment.

I have a problem with the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment, that any restriction on the ownership of weapons is not permitted. No other constitutional right is interpreted in this sweeping of a manner, not even the all powerful First Amendment. There are always limitations, liimitations consistent with the maintenance of the basic underlying right.

Funny, you lefties seem to think the First and Fourth Amendments cover everything up to and including terrorists rights

[Predicto]

Funny, you lefties seem to think the First and Fourth Amendments cover everything up to and including terrorists rights

As we have discussed before but you always ignore, the First and Fourth Amendments place restrictions on the government, one of which being that the government can't ASSUME you are a terrorist. They don't protect terrorist rights - they protect individual rights of everyone. Nice try tho.

[PokerPacker]

Personally, I think showing the fact that you have a gun would be a deterrent for most acts of violence. Anyone who is going to attack a person who is already packing is going to attack no matter what. If the average person is going to carry, I'd rather it be where I can see it. I don't think the average person on the street has a need to have concealed firearms.

Jason

that's the thing, if they're gonna do something, and they see you're packing, that makes you a threat, and therefore, primary target. The idea isn't to be a deterrent, the idea is to drop the man massacring civilians.

[PokerPacker]

How many times have you said I'm glad I didn't have my gun or I would shot that knucklehead in the heat of the moment?

wow... um... i think you just proved why you shouldn't carry a gun.

[The 12th Commandment]

But if you want a small, handheld weapon that you can sneak around to rob liquor stores, or whip out of your glove compartment when you get road rage, or that you can carry around quietly so that you feel all cool like Dirty Harry, then join the police force...

...or that you can keep in your nightstand, or the glove compartment of your car, or in a backpack...well you get my drift. There are an number of situations where a handgun is preferrable to a shotgun or rifle. They're fun to shoot too.

And feel all cool like Dirty Harry, blah, blah makes you sound like a condescending jerk. Maybe it's been a long week and you just need a cold one but that there is wack. I don't have your back on that though I usually do.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Predicto....

What I want is a small, concealable, hand held, ranged weapon so that when the scumballs that your side of the political spectrum call "victims of society" decides that he's entitled to my wallet, watch, car, stereo, computer, or anything else that I've already paid for IN ADDITION to whatever portion of my paycheck they're already stealing through the state I can bypass the gutless, moronic lawyers and judges in this country and deal out the necessary PUNISHMENT to the Son of a *****, 124 grains of Total Copper Jacketed Hollow Point at a time. Probably two in the chest and one in the head if necessary.

If your gutless political cohorts would put the criminals behind bars and throw away the key there wouldn't be AS MUCH of a need for concealed carry. Unfortunatly your philosophical brethren are more interested in the fact that Joe Scumball didn't get hugged enough by his mommy and didn't get to play catch with his daddy when he was a child than the fact that he's a criminal who deserves nothing more than a 6'x6'x8' tall concrete box for the rest of his worthless life.

[Sarge]

As we have discussed before but you always ignore, the First and Fourth Amendments place restrictions on the government, one of which being that the government can't ASSUME you are a terrorist. They don't protect terrorist rights - they protect individual rights of everyone. Nice try tho.

Good twist. Still doesn't jibe with your stance on the Fourth though, saying you have a complete and total right to privacy in one instance (Government Wiretaps) but you have to accept restrictions on gun ownership in another

Nice try tho

[Larry]

Wow. SDurprised it took 70 posts for this subject to be reduced to things like:

But if you want a small, handheld weapon that you can sneak around to rob liquor stores, or whip out of your glove compartment when you get road rage, or that you can carry around quietly so that you feel all cool like Dirty Harry, then join the police force. Otherwise, I don't have your back on that one. And I'm not impressed by your constitutional argument to the contrary (though I fear that our current right-leaning Supreme Court is about to prove me wrong).

and

Predicto....

What I want is a small, concealable, hand held, ranged weapon so that when the scumballs that your side of the political spectrum call "victims of society" decides that he's entitled to my wallet, watch, car, stereo, computer, or anything else that I've already paid for IN ADDITION to whatever portion of my paycheck they're already stealing through the state I can bypass the gutless, moronic lawyers and judges in this country and deal out the necessary PUNISHMENT to the Son of a *****, 124 grains of Total Copper Jacketed Hollow Point at a time. Probably two in the chest and one in the head if necessary.

If your gutless political cohorts would put the criminals behind bars and throw away the key there wouldn't be AS MUCH of a need for concealed carry. Unfortunatly your philosophical brethren are more interested in the fact that Joe Scumball didn't get hugged enough by his mommy and didn't get to play catch with his daddy when he was a child than the fact that he's a criminal who deserves nothing more than a 6'x6'x8' tall concrete box for the rest of his worthless life.

(Although I will admit to being surprised at Predicto saying that.)

(I expect "reasoning" like that from Mass.)

[SUSkinsFan]

Originally the Constitution was going to say "Life, Liberty, and Property" instead of "...and the Pursuit of Happiness". I think that says all there is that needs to be discussed on whether or not the Founding Fathers felt that personal and home protection were appropriate uses for firearms, including handguns.

You might wanna brush up on your American History MSF. You are quoting the Declaration of Independence, which is non-justiciable. Also, the fact is that the document doesn't say Property, so you can't make an argument on what it was going to say.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

(Although I will admit to being surprised at Predicto saying that.)

(I expect "reasoning" like that from Mass.)

You shouldn't be surprised at ANY cowardly Liberal being unable to comprehend the idea of protecting themselves Larry. Didn't you know, Liberals require the government to come and wipe their asses after they take a ****. They can't do anything without the government, especially something like taking the initiative to protect themselves, their family, and their proprty. Nor do they want anyone else doing anything for themselves. Especially when it means that members of their favorite groups (criminals, minorities, etc....) are going to end up with significant cases of lead and copper poisoning.

[RDSKNfaithfull]

wow... um... i think you just proved why you shouldn't carry a gun.

That was what I was trying to prove :doh: