Everyone skips the "well regulated militia" part of that. Setting aside the fact that the 2nd amendment itself is a relic from an older time, the gun-fellaters of the modern day have clearly perverted the amendment into something it was never meant to be in the first place.

Times change, old values die.

"Who is getting their freedom limited?"
Gun enthusiasts are effected by this nonsensical legislation.

"And if they are how so?"
Didn't you read the part that said "renew a prohibition on assault weapons sales"
Do you even understand what an assault weapon means? Can you even describe to me what an assault rifle is? If you know so little about the topic at hand why do you feel that you are entitled to such strong opinions?

"Should people be able to do anything they want and own w/e they want and as much of it as they want with?"
When did I ever suggest this? It looks like you are making a little straw-man to argue with. Also, only a fool deals in absolutes.

"Right to bear arms =/= government trying to control weapons (whose only purpose is to kill MANY people and notihng else)."
Wrong, firearms act as a deterrent to criminals, WITHOUT the necessity of being used. Firearms can also be used for sporting purposes as well as hunting. Also, before you post some nonsense such as "well, assault rifles aren't used for hunting" GUESS AGAIN. The VZ-58 is an excellent firearm for hunting dear, in my opinion, the very finest.

"If his acts have no effect on these events, then I hope they keep trying to figure this problem out."
The thing is, we will have a bunch of new, obtrusive laws that have little to no positive effect with no way to immediately repeal them. How can you fail to see the problem with that?

"Doing nothing solves nothing."
When did I suggest doing nothing? I recommend that we actually take the time to assess the situation and properly understand how to address it while doing as little as possible to violate individual liberty. You know, one of the principals that this once great nation was founded on.

"Saying an issue can't be solved does nothing."
So does enacting ineffective legislation. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted by Bill Clinton did almost nothing to curb gun violence. If you had taken a couple of minutes to actually research this topic you would have discovered that this had been attempted before with little effect.

"Making a few attempts that doesn't really have an negative effect on anyone could potentially do nothing as well, but its a start and better then doing nothing."
Again, this severely effects millions of gun enthusiasts, just because you don't want them to enjoy their rights doesn't mean you should, without any supporting evidence, take such a ridiculous stance on this issue. Again, this will do nothing to solve the issue, we should actually take the time to research other possible courses of action and then implement a plan that actually addresses the problem (without violating the rights of millions of people).

No offense but how can you actually believe that this is meant to solve the problem? The government doesn't have anybody's interests at heart except their own. This is not being done to correct the problem, it's being done to control and pacify the masses.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban didn't help and neither will this.

Also:
"He (Obama) also announced 23 steps he intends to take immediately without congressional approval."
How can anybody, and I mean anybody, be okay with this? Do you people not recognize when the government is overstepping its bounds?

@Mr Khan
No offense but you have been rebutted again and again in other, similar topics and you keep posting such nonsense. Why are you willfully ignoring what others have to say? Do you only read what you already agree with?

We will always have people going crazy trying to hurt others. I doubt few would argue that everyone should have access to Nuclear Weapons. They seem ok with that limit - then get hysterical over any gun regulations. It doesn't make since to me.

So limiting Military Assault Rifles - and the huge clips seems like a good idea. Often, the only time we get those people is when they are reloading. So yes, I support President Obama in this action too.

Pro 2nd Amendment here, but I'm not the easy offended type on this issue (or most issues for that matter).

I just think this is another political game -- politicians want to appear as "in touch" with Americans, when really they couldn't be any further! This is just another runaround game to garnish the popular vote for future elections.

It's a disagreement on a very fundamental level. You guys think we need a good reason to take your guns away. I say you need a good reason to have them in the first place.

There's no dialogue to be had, so i'll willingly resort to just bombarding the discussion.

"In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

I guess the only interpretation that matters is your interpretation. I guess that if you don't agree with the majority's (also the Supreme Court's) interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms then it makes sense to oppose it.

Also the only values that seem to be dying are ones like:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

I guess the only liberties that matter are the ones that you deep appropriate. Sorry but I am glad that you will never hold any significant amount of power.

It is disgusting to see a moderator behave in such a fashion. Goodbye VGchartz, what a f**king toilet of a forum.

no, people just know how to read english. the well regulated militia is inconsequential to the operative clause of the amendment.

if the 1st amendment read something like this: Being able to gather and protest being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to have free speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of press shall not be infringed. would that make it so that you only can have free speech if you gather in a group together. no. its just one of the reason to have free speech. 

as you can see, the 2A, clearly states that the people are the ones that are allowed to kepp and bear arms. nevermind the fact that militia was any able body person able to fight, so pretty much everybody anyway.

you know how is called when everybody is armed in their own nation? Civil war

would be better if he actually addressed the real issue, mental health. All of these acts of violence we have seen still would of occurred even if guns were outlawed and not available. They would simply use some other method to cause mayhem, weather it be bombs, using vehicles as weapons, setting fires, etc. If you want these acts of violence to stop we need to find a way to deal with the mentally handicapped/psychotics. Our jails are too crowded and our police are too busy jailing and prosecuting drug crimes and criminals that they do not have the space/funding/time to adequately deal with the mentally unstable.