| steven787 said: That's not true, Obama supports the states right to choose whether Hand guns in the hands of individuals are covered by the 2nd amendment, basically allowing each local constituency to decide what the state militia means. He does not support overall gun bans or gun registration but he does support the enforcement of laws on vendors who sell illegally, which isn't enforce currently. McCain/Palin 2008 http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm |
This is one area where I think states rights would be a good forum for the question. Obviously the federal government has an interest in banning quite a few types of firearms as there are a lot of laws on the books (and for good reason, I don't want people being able to buy AK-47's down the block), but for anything outside of that it probably is a good idea to let states decide.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
