I also support making its expiration permanent.

Also, on what foreign battlefield can neutered semi-auto only AK-47s be found?

"Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them."

Once Obamamama manages to further his agenda all of us gun owners will qualify as the "criminals who shouldn't have them". Who does he think he's kidding?

You have to wonder who he's planning to go to war against. This could make a lot of countries a little nervous.....

Is there some study that shows "shall issue" (or castle doctrine, or whatever good law) is the most effective gun-related legislation? If so, then we can argue we only want "gun control that works/saves lives/etc."

I just have a hard time imagining the Democrats are so deluded that they think they're immune from a 1994-like response in 2010.

well when martial law is declared there won't BE a 2010. Hugo Chavez was elected too.

Look at the crap he's proposed and tell me it's NOT going to be open season on Americans...for every thug and terrorist

Not only does Obama want to further infringe on second amendment rights, there are persistent rumors that his staff is pressuring him to change the spellings of Alabama to "AllahBama," and Alaska to "Allahska."

Both would still be pronounced the same, however, so it's no big deal.

Well ... I'd like to think that the American people would go crazy if the Federal government arbitrarily tries to restrict long held policies in 40 states, even if they don't believe in CCW personally.

But I've been disappointed in the American people quite a bit just recently ...

The Brady Campaign believes that the Heller case victory has destroyed NRA's power base (fear of outright confiscation). To the extent that many, many gun owners are both naive and stupid, the Bradys may be right.

Bubba really wants to believe Obama's lies about his position "in support of" Second Amendment rights so's Bubba can please his Union shop steward by reporting that he voted "a straight Democrat ticket."

See: http://www.bradyvoter.org/

No, the idiots who don't vote on the gun issue are largely unaware of Heller or have already forgotten. The people I've met who still remember Heller aren't under any illusions that it changes anything in terms of not longer having to be afraid of the grabbers.

If they only belong on foreign battlefields, and not on our streets, then of course he will remove them from police possession, because they do not belong on the streets where cops carry them, right?
I doubt it.
I am prepping for the worst, anyways.

My prediction is that Obama-Biden will do nothing to change state right to carry laws. Political suicide is not in Obama's nature. I predict that this will become a dead issue which affects the relevance of this site. Anyway, that is my prediction for what it is worth.

"My prediction is that Obama-Biden will do nothing to change state right to carry laws. Political suicide is not in Obama's nature."

I'm not so sure that he understands the nature of the opposition to anti-gun laws. He, as does most politicians, lives in a bubble. Anyway as Clinton once said he is not going after the hunter's guns. Seems the Democrats/Liberals missed that part about the 2nd Amendment's being in the Constitution to afford citizens protection from the government.

I'd like to think that at least one Governor would stand up and say "NO!, you cannot trample on the constitution and laws of our state and the Constitution of the United States."

And then I woke up from the dream.

The language I use regarding this instead of 'gun control' is that government wants to strip me of my right to defend myself.

The right to self defense. That's what it boils down to.

"well when martial law is declared there won't BE a 2010. Hugo Chavez was elected too.

Look at the crap he's proposed and tell me it's NOT going to be open season on Americans...for every thug and terrorist"

You want to talk about over-reaching, what about Obama's desire for a Civilian National Security Force (S.A., for short), equal in power and funding to the military. WTF, over?

To my way of thinking, WE the militia are the "Civilian National Security Force" envisioned by the Founders. If Obama wants to have Colt, Bushmaster, etc., etc. work 3 shifts a day to produce full autos to hand out to the public, well that's one government give-away program that I won't fight. Anything else, and he can stick it somewhere - especially that SA thing.

So, Obama wants to prohibit individual states from having shall issue carry permits?

My reaction to that is a slight variation on what my father's Russian cousin told him about the Soviet Union shortly after he got out in the 1990s: They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.

Little Barry doesn't understand that one cannot repeal a natural law - and self-defense is THE most basic law. I don't know a single person with a carry license that'd obey a law like that, and thereby leave themselves and their families at risk. Come and take them!

"I'd like to think that at least one Governor would stand up and say "NO!, you cannot trample on the constitution and laws of our state and the Constitution of the United States."

And then I woke up from the dream."

You weren't dreaming.

http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2006/03/ind_law_daniels_1.html

Even as Obama squeeked out a win in Indiana, Mitch was re-elected by a landslide.

We must draft this guy for 2012 POTUS, he really does not want to run for public office again after his term is up.

But he *ROCKS*.

To quote Thomas Aquinas, a great proponent of natural law: "An unjust law is no law."

Good enough for me.

This poster pretty much says it all:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1674852&postcount=59

Question for His Hope&Changiness Barack the First:

"Given that we're currently unable (or unwilling) to effectively control the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into this country, what makes you think you'll be able to control the flow of black-market firearms?"

Furthermore, His Majesty seems utterly oblivious to the fact that perfectly serviceable weapons can be quickly assembled and/or manufactured by knowledgeable individuals in any decently equipped machine shop. If the Israelis,, Vietnamese, and Pakistanis have been able to do it, what's to stop good old American know-how?

The "Sten gun," anybody?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten

Robert Mugabe, elected in Zimbabwe, destroyed that formerly prosperous nation's economy by having roving bands of so-called "veterans" (many not even born during the Pyongyang-trained former schoolteacher's revolutionary struggle) seize land wanted by Mugabe and his followers.

Jimmy Carter and the UN forced Mugabe on the hapless folks in Zimbabwe, in spite of massive voter fraud and intimidation. literally tens of millions of black Africans in Zinmbabwe and surrounding nations have starved to death as a result of Mugabe's terror tactics.

"We" just elected Jimmy Carter II. How many tens of millions of Americans must die? And will it even be possible to remove him from power?

"Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them."

Well, no one wants a child to get ahold of a gun, the Dems generally have not and do not favor keeping guns away from criminal who shouldn't have them (as opposed to criminals who should have them). They do not favor prison as a means of keeping criminals off the street or the death penalty as a means of REALLY keeping criminals off the streets.

Thus, as SCOTUS ruled last May, what the Bill of Rights says, it says. Why are they bothering with guns again?

Did I miss the right to carry info? I didnt see it in the link.

Some on the hard-left don't care if voting for a Congressional gun ban causes them to lose an election. They are more ideologically committed than that. Moreover, the Dems feel they are under a "mandate" by the American people to persue "progressive" policies. They've been waiting for this moment for eight years, and the political landscape has changed beyond their wildest dreams. Say goodbye to your 2A rights.

The wording of the last isn't peculiar if (as I believe) it signals Obamas intent to impose wide and deep import restrictions...

I'm kind of curious. In Minnesota, we 56,000 folks with carry permits, so there's lots of people legally carrying firearms "on the street". While the statutes exempt carry permit holders (among others) from the general prohibition on carrying long guns, I've literally never seen anybody, other than a cop, carrying a long gun -- much less an "assault weapon" on the streets.

Is this some sort of widespread problem elsewhere that is important enough to reach the platform of a Presidential campaign? Or, perhaps, is there just a little bit of pandering and distraction obamagoing on?

HR 1022 establishes a violation of the AWB on par with an NFA violation. 10 years. Do they really want to go down that road?

Eagle 1

"Guns for me, but not for thee"?

In Washington state, there are more than 250,000 concealed weapon carry permit holders. State law and (I believe) the state constitution dictate that the state "shall issue" permits to anyone legally allowed.

Attempting to take that right away will (1) create a lot of scofflaws, and (2) motivate a large and influential population to actively work against such an overreaching by Obama and his merry crew of fascists.

But if you want an autoloader that can hold more than 10 rounds, better buy it now....

John Lott: "More Guns, Less Crime"...

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493644/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226420116&sr=8-1

I pray that God will come to our aid but I believe that the People of the US have chosen against God. History is replete with examples of the process. Is the US immune?

What the hell did People think Obama was going to do? Oh, yeah. 99% of the People don't think. Can't think.

The reasons the Framers did what they could to keep the People from choosing the President have all been vindicated in this election. Demagogues ALWAYS sway the ignorant.

Those who state that common sense restrictions or reasonable restrictions on firearms are ok are part of THE problem. A hole in the dike will, at some point, allow ALL the water through. Common sense restrictions on the use, such as not shooting other people, are ok. But there are NO common sense restrictions on what can or cannot be owned. Who draws the line? Is the line movable? We all know the answer to this.

How bad will it be? Only time will tell but there is already talk about stealing everyone's retirements and moving them to SS. The sole true reason is that IF the government controls your money, the government controls you. Don't do as they say and they can cut you off at the knees.

The plan to remove Arms from the People is not pandering. It is not a joke. These folks seriously want to control everyone.

In 1833, Justice Joseph Story wrote about the fact that People were already tired of the militia aspect of the Constitution. He also discussed how the People in general will roll over and be screwed. He wrote of how throughout history People have taken the yoke of slavery for a long time BEFORE they would stand up and fight. Look around you. Look at these People. Look at your neighbors. How many would roll over? How many would die? How many voted for this new administration?

I have been a university prof for 25+ yrs. I have seen that humans as a rule are lazy and greedy. Humans as a rule are willing to take what they want regardless of the law because humans are selfish. Today's youth have been propagandized to the point they know nothing. Either we are totally incompetent as teachers or there is an agenda in place to stupidify the People.

Dominus providebit!

"Either we are totally incompetent as teachers or there is an agenda in place to stupidify the People."

There is. It's called MTV.

I think BHO learned a little political respect for us when he nearly lost the nomination by shooting his elitist mouth off in the Pennsylvania primary. The Feinstein/Schumer/Reid/Pelosi
Cabal may feel so empowered by BHO's ascendency that their orgasms are better than ever, but I doubt their ardor will move BHO to such political suicide, at least in his first two years. And they'll need his consent to do this. But if the Cabal's power grows in 2010, then's when Hell will break loose.

This is why we need to start working our asses off right now to get friendlies elected two years hence.

Mea culpa. I forgot to type my name when I posted the above. Dunno what FWB stands for -- altho when someone points it out I shall feel foolish as the dickens.

Lordy, I do now feel so foolish, having read the FWB above my anonymous post instead of below it.

I had hoped that Obama and Co. would be too busy with the rest of his agenda to bother gun owners, especially since gun control has never been very good to Democrats, but I may be wrong.

No wonder folks are buying semi-auto weapons at record pace.

Here is something scary. I gave an NRA Basic Pistol Class this last weekend to 21 students of varying firearm experience from those who had never shot a gun before to others with considerable experience. NONE of them had ever heard of the Heller case, either by name or by subject matter, NONE of them knew about the DC gun ban, and MANY of them did not know what the 2nd Amendment was about.

The discussion came up in the context of explaining the positive reasons for good people to own guns, which is part of the NRA pistol course. A full discussion of Heller and the 2nd Amendment is not part of the course so I could not go into it in depth that day. But I invited them to stay later the next morning, after completion of the NRA course, for a discussion of Heller and the 2nd Amendment, and they all stayed. They now have a firm grounding in the issue.

None of these people were stupid, the lowest score on the pistol exam was 90. Almost half scored a 100. But Will Rogers was right when he said we are all ignorant only on different subjects. Unfortunately, a subject that many smart people are ignorant on is that we are constantly at risk of losing our rights.

MarkJ said:

Furthermore, His Majesty seems utterly oblivious to the fact that perfectly serviceable weapons can be quickly assembled and/or manufactured by knowledgeable individuals in any decently equipped machine shop. If the Israelis,, Vietnamese, and Pakistanis have been able to do it, what's to stop good old American know-how?

He is also oblivious to the fact that desktop fabrication is just on the horizon in the twenty first century. Molecular manufacturing anyone? Want a gun? Click "Print".

"He is also oblivious to the fact that desktop fabrication is just on the horizon in the twenty first century. Molecular manufacturing anyone? Want a gun? Click 'Print.'"

I was oblivious to this, too. In fact, I still am. Why would anybody need a gun anymore?

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their RULERS are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
[full caps added for emphasis]
~Thomas Jefferson
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm

Is anyone else ready to refresh the tree?

"Supporting it is an insider DC tip that his people are seriously considering a federal ban or restriction on "right to carry" laws."

WTF? I want more information about this 'insider DC tip'. Please provide more information. Who is reporting this tip? David Keene?

Clark Kent said:

Why would anybody need a gun anymore?

Only someone who is ignorant of the full implications of evolution by natural selection would make a statement like this. Newsflash, humans are part of the animal kingdom, and like all other animals, humans must defend themselves from predators (most likely from other humans since humans are predatory apes) or else become prey. Just like any other animal.

Thus the importance of the right to bear arms and the right to self defense.

What is the legality of a Presidential Signing Statement / Executive Order, or a law passed by Congress and signed by the President against the 10th amendment of the constitution which specifically says this is a issue for the states........

Funny right wing wackaloons. But seriously, for a moment, just consider: Obama is Harvard educated, edited the school journal on law, and taught Constitutional law in Illinois. And you really want to question his understanding of the Constitution? With what, exactly? your JD, um, from where?

Sleepdawg said:

Funny right wing wackaloons. But seriously, for a moment, just consider: Obama is Harvard educated, edited the school journal on law, and taught Constitutional law in Illinois. And you really want to question his understanding of the Constitution? With what, exactly? your JD, um, from where?

Argument from authority and Ad Homininem all in one! Learn some logic before you post.

Robert, take a deep breath and exhale. Then maybe you'll feel a tad lighter. The remark over which you took me to such dismissive task was in response to your bizarre statement about molecular manufacturing, of which I admittedly don't know a damned thing. But, unless you were joking, and somehow I get the impression you take yourself too seriously to joke, if anyone with a computer could obtain a firearm -- or presumably anything else -- by simply hitting a print button, people's lives would be a lot more complex than they are today. Each household owning, say, a dozen clones to maintain security? But, staying with your original notion, if you or I could print out one gun, why not a thousand guns or as many guns as we like? If I needed a gun to protect myself from a thief, why wouldn't the thief simply print out whatever it was that he or she wanted to steal, instead of fighting my clones with their thousand guns to get it from me? This whole "argument" is so implausibly theoretical, of course, that I'm beginning to wonder why I even bothered to take your bait initially. We're here to talk about protecting the 2nd Amendment, so why toss in some remote theory that hasn't a bloody thing to do with the 2nd Amendment?

Unless you were joking, and I misjudged you. If so, my apologies. Ha ha ha. Good one. (Whew! Somebody open a window...)

Clark Kent assumes its just thieves one needs to protect oneself against. He is oblivious to that the fact that the human is a predatory animal, unless of course all those would be rape and murder victims are just a figment of my imagination.

As to desktop manufacturing, it makes the whole point of gun control obsolete. If the point of gun control is to reduce the availability of firearms, the desktop fabricator instantly makes that point moot. Even today, garage sized fablabs can manufacture firearms. If you knew how to read you would noticed that point being mentioned. There is nothing theoretical about current fablab technology as another poster who mentioned homemade automatics in Pakistan had made the point. The advent of desktop fabricators is based on current trends in technology today. The Sten submachine-gun can be made in a primitive garage factory.

My, but you are a charmer, Robert. Sure glad you're on our side. (ahem)

Clark Kent, your words about thieves and your failure to mention rapists and murderers make me doubt that you actually understand the need for self defense. This makes me doubt that you're on the side of self defense. Am I wrong?

One of the big ironies is that leftists who accept the theory of evolution fail to comprehend its implications. I know they fail to comprehend its implications because they are prone to belief in pacifism or at least its fake variants.

I will forgive you for your ignorance of the latest state-of-the-art trends in twenty first century technology.

Thank God for the wee mercies.

Had another thought (you stimulate me, Robert -- another of your, I'm sure, many assets): If we hope to succeed beyond our tuffcloth brotherhood in winning over those less dedicated to supporting the 2nd, or at least in neutralizing all but our most rabid opponents, we must include a sense of humor in our playbook. What better place to practice such craft than right here on this and other fora visited mostly by us?

I recognize the need also to do a little screening to try to weed out spies from the other camp, make them spit latte on their Birkenstocks and screech at us that we're nothing but a buncha bad old beasts and why can't we all just get along 'n all, sniff sniff.

But in open confrontation, humor can be a great tool, disarming (couldn't avoid the pun), belittling and playing to the larger audience. The Birkenstock crowd loves acid wit -- the quick fart (well, only the best Birkers are up to risking that, but some of them are pretty good), so it wouldn't hurt to prepare for the thrust and parry, as well. We could take a lesson from the late William F. Buckley Jr. in that area. He was a master at matching the elite on their own field.

That's it for now. Time for my morning walk in the woods (with my dog and an S&W 296 loaded with Safestops as my companions).

Ooops. I inadvertently deleted a line. Should read: The Birkenstock crowd loves acid wit -- the lifted eyebrow, the half smirk, the sigh, the quick fart...

Awright, to the woods!!!

Well, 'twas a mighty fine jaunt! No contact with Indians, no need to send for Mike. Tasha does hafta wear a blaze-orange scarf this time of year, tho, as hunters sometimes stray into our posted woods. A neighbor told us last month he nearly shot her during bow season. She's a bushy mix of keish hound and golden retriever, with a touch of spitz. I digress, but I desist...

Top o' the day to youz!

Somebody is jumping the gun on Obama, so to speak.
Wait until he gets in office and does things before pressing the alarm button.
Too many false alarms and when a real one comes no one will be there to respond.

first thing great leaders like Hitler, castro and stalin did was to disarm the citizens for the good of all.
long live Obama President of the world

Well say what you like about Obama, but gun sales are up two to three times normal levels since his annointment. People generally buy guns for self defense, not for offensive reasons. Gov't does alot of things that it should not be in the business of doing. But defense of its citizens is one of the things Gov't should do. Seems the purchasing of weapons by citizens is a testament that they do not believe the Gov't is going to fulfill this role and they must do it alone. It is perhaps the only case yet of self responsibility that the "new Gov't" is breeding these days.

Being armed - being prepared to defend your life and personal property - is a fundamental human right. I don't hear enough people mentioning this, much less as stridently as is necessary. Any government that prevents its citizens from arming themselves is, by definition, tyrannical. The disciples of Christ? Armed, every one of them - as were all Israelite males then AND now - with swords with blades of about 14" in length (You'll remember a Roman soldier paid with an ear to be reminded of that fact). And, Aristotle said, "The true measure of a people's freedom is whether they are armed or not." That's over 2,300 years ago!

And don't give me any of this, "Well swords, yes, but guns no" crap: When the standard military sidearm is a phased plasma pistol in the forty watt range - heh - that's what the citizenry MUST have.

There is hardly a genocidal massacre in human history that wouldn't have been prevented - or at least hindered at the cost of many, many agressor's lives - if the victims had been armed. People who don't understand this are profoundly retarded... at least, compared to me they are. LOL!

I love people who would remove freedoms available to all because "they" think they should not be enjoyed.

The framers of our Nation thought different.

See Prof. Volokh's article (http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm).

See pg 339 of Elliot's Volume 1 where the 4th suggested Amendment to the Constitution was what became the 2nd Amendment. Where the proposed amendments are introduced with

"The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;--

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three forths of the said legislatures, to be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, namely"

. . .

Art. IV. 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."

. . .

We should protect everyone's freedoms, even if we don't partake in them, enjoy them, or agree with them because failure to do so means we end up bing something other than what we and our founding fathers want/wanted--A free nation where all people are equal and free to enjoy all of the rights granted by the Constitution and our laws.

What "they" seem to forget is that, at some point, "they" will be "in the minority" and will be hoping that "those in the majority" will want to protect the "minority's rights" even if the "majority" does not agree with them...

You protect the right and freedom because it is a right and a freedom, not because you want to own a gun, speak on the courthouse steps, or ...

Of course, that is just my opinion...

Well we tried the soap box,and ballot box.Guess all thats left is the ammo box! MOLON LABE.

Hold your horses, there, Fred. The sky may be looking dark, but it ain't started falling yet!

Is Jim W in the first few posts, Jim Webb. THE Jim Webb, Senator of Virginia who has already made an ad lying about his and Obama's support of 2nd amendment rights? THE jim Webb who responds to his constituency telling them that he cannot respond to their concerns about the 2nd amendment remarks that he made in his support of Obama because it would break federal laws preventing him from dealing with partisan election issues? THAT Jim W??

I stopped watching the ads long before Election Day, so I missed the one to which Calypso Jones refers. But Webb did get an NRA "A" when last rated in 2006 for the same election in which George Allen earned an A+. Politicians aren't priests, but not all party members are mavericks (not even some self-ordained "mavericks.) Did his ad help BHO get elected? Possibly, but more likely, in my opinion, Webb saw the odds stacking up for the Dems this year, and did his party duty. I'm willing to wait until the Senate voting starts before passing judgment on him.

Calypso implies that Webb dodged some questions from him about the notorious ad. No surprise there. Ain't that what politicians do?

'Supporting it is an insider DC tip that his people are seriously considering a federal ban or restriction on "right to carry" laws.'

I could not find any actual news article that made this assertion about the DC insider (unless David Hardy is asserting he was tipped by said insider himself?)

This is obviously different than restricting assault weapons, and I am concerned that people are being led to conflate the two. I have found numerous websites repeating this 'right to carry' allegation, but as far as I can tell there is no actual "source" for this allegation.

Even evidence from Obama's past positions on gun control do not support this belief well. In 1996 he responded to a targeted survey saying he supported a ban on handguns, but later denied that it was his writing on the document and said that he did not support that position.

So as far as I can tell, there is no *reliable* reason to believe Obama would ban concealed weapons. Unless of course you believe Obama is freely duplicitous, in which case you will be able to convince yourself of anything, evidence or not.

Just keep in mind that only a few words in the assault weapons ban need to be added or changed to prevent us from owning a slingshot without violating federal law. Also read closely at the crap BHO has supported in the past. I just have to call it stark reality that he very well could attack every law obiding gun owner out there. I only hope he has better sense.

Are AR and AK sales skyrocketing because people are investing for financial gain or is it for insuring they are prepared when they are told they no longer have the right to protect themselves?

What concerns me is that most people are "sheeple" more than willing to take the word of a smooth talker at the risk of their safety and their liberties. Read the history books- every single tyrannical dictator started as a beautifully spoken man of the people who won the hearts of his country. Right before he disarmed them and climbed to absolute power on their defenseless backs.

But, Lawman, none of those dictators were operating in a constitutional republic. We're too big and diverse and have too long a history of surviving with our unique system of government to be crushed by a police state. If anybody were to try to consolidate such power here, my money would be on the Clintons. They might not be out of contention yet, but their day is fast fading. I hope.

Operating on a constitutional republic is what we want and what is great about this country. With a leader who has repeatedly disregarded one of our constitutional rights throughout his career, what will stop him from tossing it out the window as president?? And if he does by chance get that accomplished, what is to stop him from disregarding any other constitutional right?? The Constitutional republic we know is out the window. The biggest threat to a tyrannical leader is an armed citizenry, hence the whole purpose of the second ammendment in the first place.

Step one to absolute power: get guns away from the people you intend to control.
I have never been a the guy to rush out to get guns, then bury them in the back yard for "the big day", but the more I research BHO's past endeavors on disarming people, the more worried I get.

The thought that my child could very well grow up in a society in which he has no guaranteed safety from his transgressors without being prosecuted for defending himself scares the crap out of me.

Speaking of crap, I'm gonna predict that with all the muscle and money BHO is pumping into Georgia to influence the outcome there, Georgians will vote Republican if only because they're so sick of the crap. Be a sweet comeuppance.

I am an 8-year law enforcement officer, and I will not recognize or enforce any gun restrictions passed during the Obama administration, because he will be a usurper, since he is not a US citizen. As a matter of fact, I will likely violate any such restrictions myself. The oath I took was to the Constitution, not to any administration or person. I will not violate that oath.

Looks like Stuart Smalley's going down in flames in Minnesota, too.

We got us a little breathing room.

God bless the state of New Hampshire
Our leaders in Concord have issued a blanket warning to Washington that NO laws passed that restrict the right to bear arms will have legal standing in New Hampshire! God bless them!!!

Live free or die! (the other guy of course)