At first I thought this was satire...

I'm a gun owner and find this fascinating. Obama "only" supports things that any law abiding citizen with a brain would support. Reducing crime by limiting access to the types of guns that criminals use is not a bad thing.

I have no problem registering my gun. I don't need assault weapons. A waiting period is fine because I don't plan on committing a crime or murdering anyone. What's the problem here?

So, you support banning all handguns, banning most rifles, banning all gun stores, and other infringements on gun ownership?

I suspect you're the one missing the brain.

"I don't need assault weapons."

and, of course, the law should only allow you to keep things you can prove that you need. remind me again, what country do you live in?

Bottom line . . . Barack Obama has made his career in large part on being the anti-gun candidate. Now that he wants to run for President, he wants to "moderate" that position, but he's never made any bones about it before--when he was running here in Illinois, in a part of the state where being the gun-control candidate is an advantage.

It defies belief for him to try to pretend otherwise now, but then again, these politicians reinvent themselves between state and national prominence all the time. Al Gore was the anti-abortion, stop-the-gays guy from Tennessee at one point in his career--he was so well-known for it that the Phelps family (the people who brought you www.godhatesfags.com) hosted fundraisers for him and let his campaign workers spend the night in their homes during his Presidential campaign in 1988. But when he couldn't get an advantage out of hating gays and being for mom, apple pie and heterosexual sex, he became Al Gore, crusader for information superhighways--and Vice President.

Floyd probably supports the prosecution of those involved in self-defense shootings as well...

I completely support the 2nd Amendment...as do those men I work with who emigrated from Poland...go figure

An armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a slave.

Any more of my rights you don't "need" Floyd?

The world doesn't revolve around you.

Floyd, everything you do not see an actual need for should be outlawed?

"A waiting period is fine"? You have no problem with the women who have died because their ex boyfriend or ex husband did not cool off in the waiting period the woman was subjected to?

I don't believe Floyd (target). It is standard procedure for the cowardly antigun targets to start off with "I'm a gun owner but..." Floyd (target) couldn't handle a gun. The recoil would send her crying to her mommy. Gun owners are the brave he-men who work in factories, warehouses, and outdoors. Gun control targets can't operate without air conditioning and really don't work at all, but rather get promoted by getting people fired for offending them. Gun owners are always open to trying new things, such as hunting, mountain climbing, camping, etc. Gun control targets are only open to things that require no motion on their part. (Ever notice that they only have oral sex? That's because they're not physically capable of the motion required for anything else.)

I'd be willing to bet that Floyd couldn't hit a target at 10 yards. And that she's never in her life worked at a job which required lifting 25 lbs.

All normal people who work for a living support unlimited gun ownership.

All gun control targets are giggly half-men who lie in bed shrieking (in high-pitched voices) "Thomebody pleathure me, preferably a little boy!"

Gun owners are fully human. Gun control targets have forfeited the title.

Does anyone suppose that Floyd really doesn't own any guns? Or, perhaps only a Daisy?

Dear Floyd:

While I suspect you won't post again, hopefully you'll be back to read these comments. "What's the problem" you ask?

Let's get back to "first principles" and start with your assumption, which is that the myriad gun laws that you and Obama support actually reduce crime.

You said: "Reducing crime by limiting access to the types of guns that criminals use is not a bad thing."

OK. You are making a critical assumption, which must be addressed before the argument can proceed. Gun control advocates, such as Obama, Clinton, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin, etc., simply assume that gun control equals crime control. That assumption is the mantra of gun control ... it's repeated so often as fact that advocates just take it as truth. Most articles I read that advocate gun control automatically assume this is true, and they give it no further thought. They are usually mistaken before they even begin - that is part of the problem.

Take waiting periods, for example. The idea/belief here is that making a gun purchaser wait 24, or 48, or 72 hours, or 5 or 10 days will decrease crime because it prevents people from buying a gun "in the heat of the moment" and committing a crime with that firearm.

But in reality, we have to consider the average "time to crime" for firearms. Of firearms that have been used by a criminal committing a crime, the average "time to crime" (time from purchase to use in a crime) is about 11 years. Someone correct me if I am wrong but that's the number I recollect. And that is the AVERAGE. There are "times" in the tails of that distribution, of course, and surely a few of them are short by chance alone. But on average, people do not rush out to buy a gun and use it immediately to commit a crime. These facts demonstrate that this particular kind of gun control ... waiting periods ... is baseless, ineffective, and will not stand upon the scrutiny needed to evaluate these laws.

Look, the bottom line is this: (1) assumptions upon which arguments are based must be scrutinized, and (2) should a particular gun control law be demonstrated effective in reducing crime, that is the STARTING POINT. Even if such a law was found to reduce crime, it must be weighed against other considerations, be they the value of an armed populace, or the clear prohibition against government to pass such laws (e.g. the 2A phrase stating that "the right...shall not be infringed"). Remember, it doesn't use the same language that the 3A does ... the 2A doesn't say "shall not be infringed but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

So, Floyd, the point I really want to drive home with you is that EVEN IF a particlar law is proven effective in reducing crime, that such a law should be passed is still not a foregone conclusion.

Floyd probably does own a gun but it has stayed in his closet for years. There are quite a few gun owners of this type. They are not hobbyists.

They do not think about the implications and since they do not think it will inconvenience them it is fine. Like registration which has been used as a pretext for confiscation.

Gun purchase limits that constrain collectors. People like these need to be educated and challenged on their assumptions.

The cesspit that is Philadelphia is all that needs to be brought up to counter the Floyds of the world.

Plenty of gun banning there, not so much crime prevention. Oh sure, if you are an otherwise law abiding person who runs afoul of one of their restrictive gun laws you'll probably pay a pretty high price. But if you are, you know, an actual criminal predator, well then you'll just get a trip through the revolving door that is the Philly justice system and be back onto your merry mayhem in no time. With a little time and effort you may even get to gun down a cop.

I believe it is clear by this point that Floyd was trolling.

The first poster (Floyd) is an Obama sock puppet. They showed up on a lot of pro-gun websites ( and most other sites) right after the first of the year.

Most of them have been banned as trolls.

OK. We can limit crime by reducing access to firearms, and nobody really "needs" an assault weapon anyway. (For the sake of the discussion, I'm going to skip the fact that they aren't "assault weapons anyway.)

By the same logic, we can substantially reduce crime by reducing or eliminating access to money, can't we? Most if not all of the fraud, theft, and even armed robberies that occur in this country are motivated by money.

In fact, in most cases, crimes that involve firearms are simply efforts to transfer the wealth. So, by logical extension, the end goal is the elimination of money, and probably private property.

That'll be much easier to do if the people trying to do it eliminate private firearms first.

Dear Floyd,

Please provide objective data on when ANY limitation to our guaranteed constitutional rights has EVER reduced crime.

As a Katrina survivor, I can tell you that you just might NEED those rights. There were some times when the nearby law enforcement would be hesitant to let you go on your mission if you WEREN'T armed.

And yes, I have an evil "Assault Weapon". After the storm, I upgraded my AR Heavy Barrel Target rifle into a semi-auto M4, the latest military standard.

The opinion of law enforcement on my M4 has been varied. It ranges from "Cool!" to "Can I shoot it sometime?" to "Can you tell me how to do that?".

Can't blame them. Given the b***s*** that the government is foisting on its subjects, I wouldn't want the public armed either.

Anyone that says "I don't need assault weapons" either does not understand what the AWB actually did (ignorance) or doesn't care (stupidity).

I so tired of those supporting "reasonable" restrictions, mandates and such on firearms. Invariably few are reasonable; all effect only law abiding owners (or those TRYING to be law abiding given the laws often idiotic restrictions.) I recently moved out of NYC where the 2nd amendment is basically a nullity - magazine capacities larger than 5 rounds are banned, meaning 95% of all guns are ipso facto illegal. But out idiot Mayor says he only is against "illegal firearms." Well, when you banned handgun possession for all intents and purposes, make people obtain a possession permit before buying a rifle or long gun, and thereafter register the rifle/longarm with the police, and make the ownership of more than 3 guns a felony,there is no such thing as the 2nd amendment in NYC. Obama would support all these restrictions and more. Now I live in a state that still "trusts" people to rationally own and use their firearms.

Anyone who claims to not care about "assault weapon" bans because they don't "need" an assault weapon should also be happy to give up, say, their right to require a warrant before the police can search their home or person. If they're not committing a crime, they have nothing to worry about, so the constitutional protection is irrelevant to anyone who is law abiding. That's the logic, isn't it?

How long before "Reasoned Discourse" takes over and all those comments go down the memory hole?

Apparently Floyd doesn't realize that gun laws only prevent law abiding people having access to guns.

Criminals are by definition those who do not obey laws, and criminals do not obey gun laws any more than the obey any other law that gets in the way of them taking what they want, be it your property, their sexual gratification, or your life.

Law abiding people need guns because criminals will always have guns no matter what gun control laws are enacted. The UK totally banned private possession of handguns ten years ago. Since then the UK violent crime rate has continued to rise at an even faster rate than before the ban, and the big city street thugs are as well armed as before the ban. The UK's crime problem was not a gun problem, it was and still is a problem with people who do not obey any laws that forbid what they want to do. Japan has banned possession of handguns since WWII, but the Japanese organized crime syndicates have no trouble obtaining all the handguns they need.

I repeat, the only people who obey gun laws are the people who do not pose a threat to anyone, but only serve to make the lawful people helpless victims of those who don't obey laws of any kind.

Actually, I don't need to prevent the Government from installing surveillance cameras in every room of my house to watch my every move.

I'm not breaking the law, so I don't have anything to hide. Bring on 1984...

Wait, I'm probably guilty of several thought-crimes, and I've heard the "re-education" process is unpleasant.

Wow, I love the linked to post's premise: Criminals steal guns so Obama is only trying to enact sensible legislation to stop them. By banning guns from law abiding citizens with a brain, who might be a victim of crime. Talk about your not so tough on crime stance. Criminals steal things. People should be prohibited from having things. Ipso facto, no crime. And the poor misunderstood sociopath will get a job, buy a house and raise a family in the suburbs. Oops, did I say "buy", sorry no house for you as having things causes crime.

How about mandatory 5-10 year sentences for any theft of a gun, no parole, may not be "dealt" down by the prosecutor. If a burglary charge is sustained and a gun was in the items taken, you go away for 5-10 yrs, consecutive with the sentence for the burglary.

Let's put the onus on the poor, pitiful criminal. You want to be a thief, no problem take the TV but leave the gun as it will get you more trouble than you can handle.

www.sportsmenforobama.org

Floyd... your needs have nothing to do the rights of others. I've known so many Liberals that do not want to use the inalienable right given to all by our creator. That does not give you the right to take these inalienable rights away from others wether it's the right to self-defense by whatever means the individual decides on, to the right to run a business they way one wants.

Who elected your tribe as GOD.

Criminals break the laws, all laws. The death penalty does not stop murder, thats why it's called capital punishment it's PUNISHMENT! It's not called capital deterrent. All you can do is make the punishment fit the crime and above all understand that even though you are afraid to use your right the constitution of our country is about self governance that means YOU and I ARE the LAW it is up to use to dispense justus on a daily basic.. The cowards that have destroyed the meaning of the constitution by calling this work "a vigilante" or "taking the law into your own hand" are the liberals that are just to afraid to do the tough work of mediating out justice. And they think only
armed agents of the state should do this and they willing to tax you to death to get a cop on every block.

By the way no one, including the courts have the right to inter-pit the second amendment, it's not the Bible You can read exactly what was discussed and argued about the second amendment because it's was transcribed during the first continental congress.

But hey! if you want o live an a police state were there is no crime because quite frankly they put a bullet into those guys heads long ago no matter what the crime wether it pick pockets or most likely saying something like "Hey! wait a sec I think...BLAM!!" Move to cuba, korea, or next on the list of countries with bodies floating in the rivers Venezuela.
GO.... BE FREE!!

Reducing crime by limiting access to the types of guns that criminals use is not a bad thing.

Is this some sort of suggestion that my Sig P220 compact couldn't be use to commit a crime?

You trolls are embarrassing.

Liberals believe it's OK to have "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership despite the inalienable right expressed in the Second Amendment.

How about this, Floyd: I think the MSM is out of control, providing only a Leftist viewpoint. So let's impose some fairness. If it's OK to have "reasonable restrictions" on the Second Amendment, how about imposing "reasonable restrictions" on the First Amendment?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.We can fix the national dialogue!

Sound reasonable to you, Floyd?

Keep in mind that guns are 14th century technology. Repeating firearms are 16th Century technology. An effective ban on firearms would require backing up the world to that level, and eliminating free speech to prevent informing people of any more advanced technology.

And just incidentally, the murder of 15/16ths of the world population.

Wow, this is just not fair! I had to work non-stop the past few days and by the time I got here and saw this nonsense, you guys had already taken the best shots!

Well, I guess I can't complain. I did get the first shot at the infamous merchant marine! He and Floyd are of equal sanity.

I guess he didn't have an argument for my comments. He has banned me from commenting on his blog. Heck, its his blog, but as usual, the leftists loose their argument, and take their football and go home. Pity they don't just leave the country.

"Reducing crime by limiting access to the types of guns that criminals use is not a bad thing."

Just one question, Floyd. Can you present a single piece of evidence that any piece of gun control ever enacted in the country has actually reduced crime or prevented criminals from obtaining a particular type of weapon? The National Academy of Sciences stated that it was unable to do so, but if you think you can do better than they, please step up to the plate and inform all of us.

There's no chance of me voting for Obama (partly because his own proposals are stupid and partly due to fear of what Pelosi or Reid might do without someone to veto their even more stupid proposals), but this

"Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America."

is more than just a little exaggeration.

Well, I'm a bit confused. Since the Obamassiah has announced that he will provide health care for the sick, jobs for the jobless, lower the oceans and heal the planet, can't he just magically deactivate all the gunpowder in the world, thereby achieving his gun control goals?

Al Gore proudly announced his anti-gun intentions and lost. The dems have learned from that, and Obama is nothing if not a far, far left, stereotypical dem. Therefore, he doesn't moderate his position on guns, he merely lies, cynically hoping that his soaring rhetoric will fool those who cling to guns and religion just long enough to safely ensconce him in office where he will, once again, own his real anti-gun positions.

It's not an exaggeration.

Go to maps google com, center on your address, and search for schools.

Most people are completely unaware of how many schools and parks are around them. They are quite literally everywhere.

I've got mine. And a couple extra. And a good stock of ammo. How about you?

I love reading stuff from the MORONIC FRINGE NRA!

Moronic fringe NRA???? I consider them a little to left, to willing to compromise. What say you? Your frame of reference when it comes to "inalienable rights" is way off.

Nick:

I'd venture a very steep wager that not a single comment on this thread originated from the NRA.

Care to revise your statement?

Contrary to what some might lead you to believe, "getting it right" really does matter.

Well, Obama's "reasonable" positions are simply wonderful. So let's see, among other things he wants to:

-- ban my semiautomatic hunting rifle (which would be banned by Rep. McCarthy's "assault weapons" ban, even though rifles of ANY type are used in less than 3% of homicides, per published FBI statistics -- less than shotguns, knives, or even fists and feet).

-- eliminate civilian concealed carry (even though CCW permit holders have an even lower crime rate than do sworn police officers).

-- Ban gun sales within 5 miles of a school (his actual proposal was within 5 miles of a school or park, incidentally). Doing so would eliminate all licensed gun dealers in the entire Northeast Corridor from southern New Hampshire to at least Richmond, VA. And pretty much any other even minimally-urbanized part of the country. Check a map on school/park locations if you don't believe me.

-- and all those other "reasonable" proposals.

Yup, this guy's post helped me make up my mind who I'm NOT voting for this fall. Not gonna do it; wouldn't be prudent...

Nick, you wouldn't say that to our faces.

Gotta love "Floyd" and "Carlos." They're straight from the Brady shill playbook....

Whenever someone holds a pro-gun stance (or criticizes an anti-gun stance:

1) Portray yourself as a "hunter" or "gun owner";

2) Describe yourself as a "moderate" who can't understand the debate over "common sense" infringements on gun rights, citing yourself as an example;

3) Develop a spurious argument such as "..reducing crime by limiting access (by the law abiding) to the types of guns that criminals use (meaning all guns, of course) is not a bad thing" and throw in a couple of meaningless factoids if you can;

4) When the real debaters arrive, armed with facts and logic, run like hell;

5) Sock puppet if possible, never being afraid to throw in an ad hominem or strawman to divert attention once it's clear the argument is lost.

(Yawn.)

It looks like the little anti has shut down comments on his site ... snicker.

Hah. More "Reasoned Discourse" from the gun grabbers.

Every time, every single time they hold forth on the intarwebz, they lose. Their only solution is to ban, delete or quit blogging altogether.

I invite Elmer F-F-F-Floyd to move to the anti-gun paradise of California. Here almost all of the so-called "reasonable" anti-gun laws have been in place for years if not decades. And -surprise surprise! - it has not made one bit of difference in the rate of violent crime.

So, my choices are:

1) One senator who hates the 2nd amendment

2) Another senator who hates the 1st amendment and, I suspect, isn't too fond of the 4th.

Can I have a third option, please?

I believe O wants to disarm the population.

Sorry Carlos...

I meant "Nick." (Probably short for Floyd's nickname.)

"Floyd" bleats, "I have no problem registering my gun. I don't need assault weapons. A waiting period is fine because I don't plan on committing a crime or murdering anyone."

Yeah, right. And you don't need privacy because you have nothing to hide, and you don't need free speech because you don't want to criticize the government, and you don't need freedom of religion because you believe whatever you're told to anyway.

"They first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up -- because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up -- because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up -- because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up -- because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me -- and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Oh, and Brad — you're mistaken. California's anti-gun laws have affected violent crime there. They've steadily increased it. Try plotting violent crime rates in California against waiting period extensions — every extension is followed by a sharp rise in violent crime. Then the rate levels off, and then they extend the waiting period again.