Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Obama Wants to Take Away Your Right to Carry A Gun!
townhall.com — "I am not in favor of concealed weapons....We 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." Does he not see his inherent hypocrisy? The people carrying guns without permits are already criminals!
AWBoy666- 22 diggs
- digg it
- Konrad9, on 05/17/2008, -6/+10Uh.
He's condemning ILLEGALLY concealed weapons. Illegal guns. Not legally owned weapons, which he says he supports in this article.
Nice sensationalist headline though.- AWBoy666, on 05/17/2008, -2/+7No, he's not. If you read the article, he favors making concealed carry permits illegal nationally.......?
See this for clarification: http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm
"The concealed carry of firearms is another important issue for gun owners, and yet Obama is not only opposed to citizens carrying guns, he supports using federal laws to override those states which currently allow the practice."
Obama wants to federally criminalize the carrying of a weapon.....IE: NO MORE CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS. - IconoclastStill, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5Read his statements - he advocates the ban of most handguns and a complete Federal prohibition on concealed carry, which is permitted in over 80% of the states. In those states where licensed carry is legal, there are *already* prohibitions in place making it illegal to carry a concealed arm without such licenses (well, except for AK and VT, where there is no prohibition whatsoever and damn little crime, although that surely is a coincidence (/* sarc)).
Your comment is simplistic and disingenuous. We already have *over 20,000 laws* in this country which regulate the ownership and use of firearms. Illegal use of firearms - whether carrying concealed, use in criminal acts, etc. - is already multiply prohibited. What good would such a Federal ban do?
Oh, it would turn the whole country into a safe place like DC where private ownership of firearms, much less concealed carry, has proven so useful . . . in making it the murder capital as well as the political capital of this nation.
- AWBoy666, on 05/17/2008, -2/+7No, he's not. If you read the article, he favors making concealed carry permits illegal nationally.......?
- AWBoy666, on 05/17/2008, -6/+7More information: http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm
"The concealed carry of firearms is another important issue for gun owners, and yet Obama is not only opposed to citizens carrying guns, he supports using federal laws to override those states which currently allow the practice." - SheilaNoya, on 05/17/2008, -4/+7Not everyone lives in rural America. For some of us "city folks", we need to have some local gun restrictions to keep the gangs from becoming a bigger problem than they already are. The argument that we should ALL carry guns to protect ourselves is also lame. I don't want to have to carry a gun just to protect myself when walking down the street.
Obama supports gun rights and he's made that very clear. However, there are also many of us in certain urban areas that overwhelmingly support some form of local restrictions on carrying guns. I am a gun owner myself, but I don't think everyone in town should have one hidden beneath their clothes. There are already enough violent people running around on our streets without allowing them to also carry a concealed weapon without a permit.
Enjoy your guns, but at least TRY to keep them out of the hands of violent criminals and crazy people - please!- AWBoy666, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5This isn't about gun restrictions.....it's about law abiding citizens to be able to obtain legal concealed carry permits. In Tennessee for example, you have to take an 8 hour course, pass written tests, pass shooting tests, and pay $200+ to get a concealed carry permit.
Criminals never get these permits.....only law abiding citizens to and they use them to prevent harm to themselves or their loved ones. So again, this isn't about the right to own a gun.....it's about letting people use one to actually protect themselves.
PS: "Without a permit".....this article has nothing to do with that! He wants to take away the right to obtain a permit! - IconoclastStill, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6There are well over 20,000 laws on the books already which govern ownership and use of firearms. There are multiple prohibitions (Federal and state, sometimes county or municipal as well) against the criminal use of firearms, against a convicted criminal so much as *touching* a firearm . . . do they work? Take a look at your own comment for that answer: a resounding NO.
This platform has nothing to do with criminals, it has nothing to do with addressing criminal acts . . . it is purely about depriving law-abiding citizens of their rights conveyed under Federal and state law. And obie supports "gun rights" as much as islamic jihad supports the state of Israel.
- AWBoy666, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5This isn't about gun restrictions.....it's about law abiding citizens to be able to obtain legal concealed carry permits. In Tennessee for example, you have to take an 8 hour course, pass written tests, pass shooting tests, and pay $200+ to get a concealed carry permit.
- foomandoonian, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2Could someone explain to me why guns are such a big deal for Americans? I know it's in your Constitution and everything, but a lot of stuff has been written down on paper for hundreds of years, and that doesn't make it right. Guns can do great harm and they can give a bad person terrible power over a good person - what makes them worth this price?
- AWBoy666, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6In my case, I am strongly for gun rights because every scientific study done shows that guns in the hands of private citizens reduce crime rates. States with lax concealed carry permits in the US generally have lower crime rates.
Here is some information: http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm
Guns scare criminals into not committing atrocious acts. Hence, guns = good.- IconoclastStill, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5In addition to the above cogent response, when our Constitution was framed, our Founding Fathers had just won independence from a tyrannical government, a freedom which would have been impossible if they were not armed. Keeping arms from the lower classes is a time-honored practice in Europe, grounded in the feudal system on which the various states came into being. Our leaders were determined this would not happen in the new nation. The Constitution guarantees our freedom; the Second Amendment guarantees the Constitution. It is a "re-set" button to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government. It is also a major deterrent to our enemies - e.g., in WW2, the Japanese refused to even consider invading American territory near any population centers (four small islands were the limit of their efforts) because they knew they would face an armed civilian "behind every blade of grass" (that term is quoted from Japanese sources).
Can bad / evil people use firearms to bad / evil ends? Of course. As they can airplanes, gasoline, bleach, cars, rocks, eye drops, kitchen knives and all manner of less obvious things. The only way to ensure complete safety from evil is for the human race to become extinct.
- IconoclastStill, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5In addition to the above cogent response, when our Constitution was framed, our Founding Fathers had just won independence from a tyrannical government, a freedom which would have been impossible if they were not armed. Keeping arms from the lower classes is a time-honored practice in Europe, grounded in the feudal system on which the various states came into being. Our leaders were determined this would not happen in the new nation. The Constitution guarantees our freedom; the Second Amendment guarantees the Constitution. It is a "re-set" button to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government. It is also a major deterrent to our enemies - e.g., in WW2, the Japanese refused to even consider invading American territory near any population centers (four small islands were the limit of their efforts) because they knew they would face an armed civilian "behind every blade of grass" (that term is quoted from Japanese sources).
- AWBoy666, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6In my case, I am strongly for gun rights because every scientific study done shows that guns in the hands of private citizens reduce crime rates. States with lax concealed carry permits in the US generally have lower crime rates.
- LKnight, on 05/17/2008, -6/+1Get real, even cashman has figured out this isn't true.
- IconoclastStill, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4A Federal prohibition on law-abiding citizens who have earned the right to carry a concealed firearm under the laws and restrictions of an organ of government is prima facie a prohibition on LEGAL behavior, not illegal behavior. As with so many other of his positions, obie is spreading disingenuous misrepresentations which require a "willful suspension" of intelligence to believe.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by