Obama filp flops his position on guns

"Inartful", "overheated"....

.... but never just plain WRONG.

Of course it is a matter of opinion, so I don't know if it can be "right" or "wrong" in an absolute sense. But the problem is that Obama's position changes depending on what's going on and who he needs support from.

All from a man who is supposed to CHANGE Washington.. but this sounds like the same ole politics to me.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Next in Bus & Driver: Obama’s position on guns [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Supreme Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

AT LAST !!

Militia's are a thing of the past, but the need to "keep and bear arms" is very much needed today.

FOXNews.com - Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Gun-Free-Zones

This is starting to come to light....

FOXNews.com - Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status - Opinion

Let's see, which makes more sense...

• Gun Free Zone - 8 Killed, when done, the gunman killed himself
• Gun's Allowed Church - Only 2 killed, gunman shot by armed church member while the gunman had plenty of ammo left.

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case

High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case - washingtonpost.com


This is interesting. The ban was overturned, so is the Supreme court hearing it so the Ban can be restored? Or are they hearing it to make the decision universal across the whole country and not just an isolated DC case?

I guess we will find out in 6-7 months.

I honestly don't see how people can read it as a "state right" or "collective right" and not an "individual right". I think anyone that reads it that way is being a little dishonest, and just looking to support their belief that certain guns should be banned. The amendment clearly says the "right of the people..." not "the right of the state"

But, if it is a collective right, then it would seem to require states to have a "well regulated Militia" so that people can exercise their collective right. It would be a pointless amendment if people have the "right" to have a gun if they are in a militia, but have no right or opportunity to be in a militia. It would be like writing the first amendment like this: The right of the people to pray to whatever god they believe in, while in church, shall not be infringed. But then outlawing churches. This would be pointless and not actually bestow any real right.

If owning a gun is contingent on being in a militia, then every state MUST be required to have a militia and regulate it as they see fit and can afford. I would actually like this interpretation, as long as the regulation of the militia was really done to make the militia better and more prepared, and not done to make people unwilling to sign up. I would think the cost would keep the regulation reasonable and similar to what some states now require for a concealed weapon permit. Stuff like safety education and actually firing the gun training. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Each Household to Have a Firearm

Sounds like a good idea to me....

Proposed Ordinance asks Each Household to Have a Firearm [This Post Continues after the jump...]