Gun-rights movement galvanized and growing

[Pullo]

"When the Senate voted recently for a pro-gun proposal by an overwhelming 67-29 bipartisan margin, it reflected the strength of the grass roots gun rights movement galvanized by massive opposition to the perceived anti-gun owner nature of the Obama administration," John M. Snyder suggested here today. ....

..... "This wasn't supposed to be the case," said Snyder. "Gun grabbers thought they had it made with Obama. They thought they'd be able to get through Congress just about any kind of idiotic anti-gun legislation they wanted. They thought they'd be able to stop any kind of pro-gun legislation that came up. They were shocked when the Senate accepted an amendment to the credit card bill by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. ....

..... Gun-grabbing politicians, academics and media personnel for years "have made a tremendous mistake," said Snyder. "That mistake has been the belief that an organization or group of organizations constitutes a 'gun lobby' and is the political force which gives firearms interests their political strength. Gun organizations give voice to gun owners. The real 'gun lobby' is the tens of millions, actually scores of millions, of American citizens who own guns. According to estimates between 90 and 100 million Americans own 200 million rifles, shotguns and handguns. ....

..... What gun grabbers attack when they think they are attacking the 'gun lobby' really is the American people, or a very large portion of the American people. AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET MAD AND REACT" .....

..... Snyder noted also that, "even though the country is going through a period of severe economic difficulty, Americans are buying guns and ammunition as they never have before, and have been since the coming to political preeminence of Obama. Americans are buying between a million and a million and a half guns a month, and have been for the last several months.

"The message is loud and clear: Obama and gun grabbers generally are producing a tremendous backlash, a backlash that is galvanizing tens of millions of Americans into a political force that well may be without precedent" .....

..... What was thought, by a lot of gun owners, to be an age of peril for them.....has instead become an age of peril for the gun-grabbers in the United States. ....

http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/Senate_Vote_Shows_Obama_Galvanizes_American_Gun_Rights_Movement_Suggests_Washington_Senior_Rights_Activist,200926899.aspx

While his tone is a bit terse, Snyder's clearly reflecting on the concerns of gun owners, given President Obama's previous record on gun-rights as well as the comments made by Holder, Napolitano, Clinton, DiFi, and others during his first few months in office.

He's absolutely spot on with his current description of the gun-rights movement and its growing influence. Its getting much harder for anti-gun pols to blame their failures on the NRA and absolve themselves of responsibility for making the American gun culture what it is today.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Lawlessness, here we come! It'll soon be the wild, wild, West again!

[TheWraith]

5. Oh please, that canard has been going around for years.

Right back to the claims that if concealed carry licenses were ever issued, every traffic accident would result in a gunfight. It's hyperbole and make believe.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. I've never felt so threatened in my lifetime (60 plus years) as I feel now in my own community.

Is there someone at the mall that might start shooting? If I give the finger to that guy in the Hummer, will he fire at me? If I look at somebody sideways in Florida, will I be a 'threat to their life'?


You feel more secure with a gun and I feel less.
It's nonsense. Two more years and I will be living in a country where firearms are licensed.

[Caliman73]

8. Ignorance is bliss I guess

Guns have been as present throughout American history as they are today. Gun crimes and violent crime in general have declined. What has increased and what makes you feel threatened is the over 400% increase in reporting of gun incidents.

Secondly, why would you give anyone the finger when you are driving? That is an aggressive act. Perhaps that is where we start to further reduce violence is in how we interact with each other.

I don't feel more secure with a gun. I avoid conflict. If I can't avoid conflict then I am confident that I can fight my way out of most danger. If I determine that the unavoidable danger is not something that I get out of without significant injury or possible death, then I am glad I have a firearm that might protect my life or the lives of my loved ones. It is a tool not a security blanket. I don't go into neighborhoods where I know people have no respect for the law and for others just because I have a gun. If anyone does that then they are stupid.

[X_Digger]

9. You mean you're more polite due to others being armed?

Sorry, couldn't resist.. :)

[jeepnstein]

10. "If I give the finger to that guy in the Hummer, will he fire at me?"

Why would you even want to do something so rude?

[slackmaster]

12. Since when does anyone with a whit of sense flip off a fellow motorist?

Or any stranger?

Your perception of increased threat may be entirely of your own making.

[gorfle]

15. Well...

If I give the finger to that guy in the Hummer, will he fire at me?

I guess an armed society is a polite society after all!

[benEzra]

16. You can't shoot someone because you "feel threatened" in Florida or anywhere else.

If you flip off the guy in the Hummer (or in the Volvo) and he/she is a CHL holder, no problem; even the police have a higher violent crime rate than CHL holders do.

If the aggressive Hummer driver is a felon high on testosterone with no CHL and nothing to lose except "respect," then I'd be worried.

[Taitertots]

20. Strange as violent crime has been trending down

While gun ownership has been trending hard upward.


Get over your excessive cowardice.

[sinkingfeeling]

32. I'm a 61 year old woman with cancer, but if you disarm yourself, I'll meet you any place, any time

and we'll see who's a coward.

[Taitertots]

35. There is no way a young man showing up to beat up old ladies

Is going to turn out anything but less than favorable for me.

Even still I don't fight with people on principal. Hurting people is wrong and unless they are trying to do something seriously wrong I would never fight anyone. Why do you feel like laws don't apply to you?

Maybe if you weren't such a bad person (flipping people off, instigating fights) you wouldn't feel so terrified of guns.

[sinkingfeeling]

39. So now I'm a bad person. You're such a saint! Calling people 'cowards'

isn't instigating a fight?

[Taitertots]

42. Calling you a coward doesn't meet the standard of fighting words

You openly called for a fight, anyplace and anytime.


If you can't handle it and start a fight over it doesn't make it instigating a fight.

[sinkingfeeling]

45. Well, 15 years ago I faced a felon who threatened to kill me. He was armed and I had a video camera.

So, I'm anything but a coward. To me a coward is someone who thinks they can only face a criminal or an ugly situation with a loaded gun.

[jeepnstein]

46. Please share that story with the class.

[sinkingfeeling]

52. Sure. Guy ran a 'nightclub' in this university town. It was sitting within 60 feet of a residential

area. Notorious for serving underage teens (city police used my driveway to run sting operations on it). Constantly had brawls, shootings, and unbelievable noise. Area residents had formed a citizens' group and were constantly reporting things to the police and city council for 4 years prior to me buying my property.

I decided to file a public nuisance lawsuit against the bar and its owner, Mr. Poe. So, I would come home from work on a Friday night, take a nap, get up around 11PM and film all that occurred on video tape until about an hour after closing. It was during those sessions that the 'bouncers' and Mr. Poe would try to intimidate me. After about 6 months of this, plus getting sound readings professionally taken, talking to the Alcohol Control Board in Little Rock, etc., I edited my hundreds of hours of video down to 18 minutes, made copies, and got on the council's agenda.

I gave my video presentation and talk. The council voted 7 to 1 to close them down as a public nuisance. Six weeks after, Mr. Poe, came to the fence and told me I'd be really sorry for what I did. About a month after that he was arrested for counterfeiting and is now serving 30 years.

[Taitertots]

54. You moved into a college town right across the street from a bar

and complained about it until they shut it down. What did you expect when you moved there? You just go looking for a fight and act like it is the other persons fault when it happens.

When did a gun come up in the story at all?

[sinkingfeeling]

57. Yeah, a 'private club' against all zoning laws and 2 miles from the campus. The 'bouncers' were

armed and showed me their guns. What they were really incensed about was the video of them loading cases of liquor into a car after hours.... heavy violation of ABC regulations.

[jeepnstein]

55. Good job.

Use that tactic on a street corner drug dealer some day and maybe you'll get the same result.

[sinkingfeeling]

59. Why would I be meeting a street corner drug dealer?

[Taitertots]

56. Oh, internet tough girl coming through

That instance sounds less cowardly and more foolhardy. What would you have been able to do if he had attempted to follow through on that threat?



I would prefer the rational avoid trouble my all means feasible and keep armed in case I can't avoid it.

[sinkingfeeling]

58. Hey, junior, I'm not a 'girl'.

[DonP]

60. No, based on your posts in this thread ...

... you are probably a woman with very poor judgement in terms of risk taking.

Between postulating about "giving the guy in the Hummer the finger" and claims to facing down armed felons across the street from your residence.

You also seem, like many gun control advocates, to think that you have the only correct and moral answer to facing potential physical harm or serious injury.

IF what you say is true, then the proposition that the next time you face a situation with potentially armed and violent felons you may not be nearly as lucky as you claim you were in this case.

That's your choice.

Thankfully you don't get to force your choices on the rest of us.

[sinkingfeeling]

61. You know, I've been on DU for years and I can't tell you how many times someone posted about

'giving somebody the bird'. I'm so glad that this new generation of DUers are always polite and would never, ever consider doing that to someone.

As I stated, I'm a 61 year old woman, who just happens to have plenty of courage. I dislike some young man calling me a 'coward' because I said I now feel less secure in my surroundings because of the mass number of 'concealed weapon permit holders' in this country.

I wasn't 'lucky' in dealing with the private club goons, I just stood my ground. When they realized that they couldn't frighten me, they stopped trying that method. I've lived alone for over 30 years and take care of myself. Have lots of good watch dogs, but no guns.

[TheWraith]

22. Actually, I never carry a gun.

I don't even own a pistol.

[jeepnstein]

29. Really?

I find that a bit surprising, not the "I don't carry" part but the "I don't own a handgun" part. Most days I cannot be bothered with carrying, either. I'm not slamming you or anything because I'm all about freedom of choice but I just find that interesting.

[TheWraith]

34. Really. Part of it is cost, part is New York State pistol laws.

In NYS, to even own a pistol at all you have to jump through a lot of hoops. About $200 in fees, for starters. Approval by local police, which is supposed to take up to 6 months but can often take even longer. Fingerprinting, photographing, full background check, submission of the serial number and cartridge casing of the gun you're buying, etcetera. It's too much time, too much effort, and too much cost for me to bother with. If it weren't for the pistol laws, I'd probably have picked up some cheap semi-antique revolver along the way, or possibly one of the inexpensive .45s out there. (I once saw a neat old .32 S&W revolver on Gunbroker that I could have gotten for $65 plus shipping.) But I don't really need a pistol at the moment, so it's never been a priority for me. Maybe someday. Besides which, the best pistols lean to the expensive. I've drooled over the FN Herstal lines, but I don't have that much cash to burn.

[jeepnstein]

36. OK.

I'm spoiled by a relative lack of restrictions in Ohio.

A few nights back I had to explain a new resident the firearms laws in our State. She was trying to "register" her guns and wouldn't believe me when I told her that was unnecessary. She wanted to see it in black and white and I was stuck trying to convince her that the law was completely silent on the issue. What was even stranger to her was that a cop was encouraging her to get her concealed carry permit even if she didn't plan on using it all the time. It was a foreign concept for a new resident.

[TheWraith]

37. Sounds cool. Though I'm not sure about living in a "swing" state.

Outside of campaigning I barely had spare time to eat and sleep last summer anyway, I can't imagine throwing a competitive presidential race on top of that. :)

[jeepnstein]

38. It's a lot of fun.

You get to meet all the big players and the work is pretty constant. One day you might be trying to convince a precinct committeeman to vote your way, the next you might be dealing with people at the highest level of the game. There are no "off" years in our politics. The burnout rate for volunteers and activists is pretty high so there's always a new challenge coming if you want one.

This November will be a breeze because all I'm doing is one Township Trustee race for a young guy just starting out.

These days I mostly get to do "opposition research" and play Devil's advocate. Before that I mostly did campaign finance, ugh.

The key is to keep it all in perspective. We're running a distance race, not the sprint that the national media would have it be.

[paulsby]

25. feelings are nice

but data is what matters.

crime rate been goin' down (longer term trend)

[NewMoonTherian]

41. I understand where you're coming from.

Guns are obviously lethal weapons, and when more lethal weapons are introduced, fear is a natural response.

On the other hand, your response isn't warranted based on empirical evidence. As others have noted on this thread, crime continues to trend downward as gun ownership and concealed carry increase(or, if you prefer, as news of increased gun ownership and concealed carry are broadcast more often).

Do you know any avid gun owners?* If you were to better get to know someone who owns and carries a gun regularly, you may have a clearer picture of the issue. That's not to say I expect your views to change, but it's always good to educate ourselves.


*Folks on forums don't count. You know forum posts don't reflect the behavior of a rational person in the real world.

[SteveM]

47. And what of this "paranoia" we hear so much of from gun-controllers?...

Time and again, gun-controllers have written in these pages of the "paranoia" of gun-owners and Second Amendment advocates. Now, it seems, that the real paranoia lies with the gun-controllers.

What are you afraid of?

[SteveM]

49. dupe

[benEzra]

11. Except that gun crime has been trending down, not up.

I'm sure the economic slowdown may reverse that trend for a couple of years, but the U.S. murder rate is near historic lows. And the number of police officers shot in the line of duty last year was the lowest since 1956.

[ManiacJoe]

13. Hollywood's version of the Wild West does not really count.

[Tim01]

18. It's still a lie no matter how many times you say it.

[east texas lib]

24. Yep. Now draw, varmit!

;-)

[rl6214]

27. Riiiigghhttt..

The blood will be running in the streets and you'll be able to pick up a machine gun at any 7-11.

[damntexdem]

2. What a sad turn of events for America! `

Idiocy holds sway in this and numerous other areas.

[AlinPA]

3. All the anti-Obama sentiment claimed by this article does not square with the fact that Obama

actually won the election by a convincing margin.

[zipplewrath]

4. However

There is virtually no "gun grabber lobby". Brady is but a shadow of its former self and holds little if any sway at all. There are various individuals who continue to attempt to appeal to their own constituents on this issue, but there is little if any organization amongst them. Almost all of the activity on the issue is generated by relatively broad, progressive organizations inside and outside the democratic party who are attempting to modify our criminal laws in general. The vast majority of the fear that the gun enthusiasts are generating is based upon nothing more than a straw man.

[benEzra]

14. So no one is seriously trying to ban "assault weapons,"

or bottleneck ammunition production/importation, or institute pre-Civil-War capacity limits?

Obama is very intelligently avoiding new gun bans, but the usual pro-ban DLC contingent on Capitol Hill is still stuck in the early 1990's, as is the MSM. We are making progress, but are not out of the woods yet, I think.

[zipplewrath]

17. No organized effort

There is no organized, coordinated efforts. There are individuals, as I said. But there is no real "brady bunch" right now coordinating and developing a strategy. There are a bunch of disparate efforts and they are secondary efforts as part of larger general crime fighting reforms.

[benEzra]

19. The Brady Bunch was never the central organizing force; the Joyce Foundation was,

which funded everything from the Brady Campaign to the Violence Policy Center, gunguys.com, and most pro-ban think tanks, along with their many false-flag reports. Since the late 1980's or very early 1990's, it appears the Brady Campaign took most of its cues from the VPC, and copied VPC-originated talking points verbatim.

The pro-ban side is now somewhat disorganized, yes, but I am not convinced they have given up. The usual DLC'ers have promised to introduce a new semiauto ban as early as next week, the NYT is editorializing endlessly about new bans, and Feinstein has promised an all-out fight for a new ban when she considers the time right.

And I don't believe the success of the pro-gun-rights side is due to organization so much as is due to sheer numbers. There are 80 million gun owners (including probably 20 million "assault weapon" owners and 40-50 million handgun owners) compared to maybe 500,000 pro-ban activists, if that many. So even with the unmitigated support of the MSM establishment, the sledding became much rougher for the prohibitionists once the Internet gave us "little people" a voice.

[zipplewrath]

28. Mixed bag

As I said, there are still organizations involved with gun restriction activities, but it is part of larger missions related to crime in general. That was always the Joyce Foundations involvement with gun control, it was tangentially related to their inner city education mission. Really, since '06 they seemed to have moved away from it (I suspect one could find that someone has left the organization and it was their axe being ground). Their relationship to organizing gun control legislation was always a bit overstated. Yes, they gave alot of money to organizations that also had gun control positions, but many of those same organizations also had more general missions on inner city crime. But as I say, regardless of how serious you think their influence was at the time, it appears to have dissolved (again, there was probably a personality driving it within the organization). The political influence of gun control on the campaign trail, and within congress has reportedly all but dissolved. Truth is Brady was a one trick poney, a Republican, directly and tragically injured by a gun "in the line of duty" with an unassailable connection to a popular president (even by that president). By '94 he had pretty much run out of material and influence.

We can argue a bit upon why the gun control lobby has fallen apart, I think you might overstate the influence of the internet and the "little people" a bit. There are many contributors, but I think the reality was that the gun control "lobby" was always basically a deep inner city phenomenon, and even then concentrated on the coasts (east and west). It had a tendency to split the union vote (such as it is these days at all). These same people were a big part of the "Reagan democrats" and gun control issues was a significant portion of that split. In the end, I think the primary weaknesses in gun control strategy was exposed to some extent and was their downfall. Gun control advocates were trying a relatively well known strategy of making people afraid of something, then slowly banning it. Cigarettes are a good example. First you scare 'em, then you marginalize them, then you tax 'em, then you ban 'em. The problem was, guns were either ubiquitous already, and so it was hard for most folks to be afraid of them because they already felt they knew and understood them. Alternately, they were hardly ever seen and so they were seen as "someone else's problem". The only place where gun control got exteremly strong, political, support is where you see it today, in the deep inner city where there are serious gun crime problems. Of course there are serious CRIME problems in those same areas.

The result was that they could never get past step one. The folks that were scared of them were a minority and since most other folks couldn't particularly care, they majority could never be marginalized. They tried with the whole "assault weapons" schtick, i.e. make something sound "scary" and then ban it. Problem was that nothing really changed in the sense that it didn't really cause anyone to "feel" safer, guns were still around. So folks never really made the connection. Cigarettes were easier, when bans started taking effect, bars got cleaner and folks knew they wouldn't go home smelling smokey. That wasn't why the ban got started, but once it did, people felt a real, direct and personal connection to the bans. With assualt weapons, most never even really knew what was banned, and felt no connection what so ever.

[jody]

31. Agree re Joyce Foundation but the Annenberg Foundation also finances anti-gun efforts.

Most people ignore the General Social Survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center in Chicago with poll questions written to bias answers in favor of gun-grabber goals.

The Joyce Foundation finances the NORC study.

The Annenberg Foundation operates Fact Check which uses its supposedly neutral, objective image to cherry pick news in favor of gun-control goals.

[krispos42]

30. The unorganized effort is still working, and drawing inflammatory attention

It's the attempts that are garnering the press, regardless if there's an organized movement or not. Remember, now an assault weapon ban is part of the Democratic party platform

[zipplewrath]

33. No political clout

The attempts garner press attention mostly because the gun RIGHTS proponents call attention to them. The individuals often can't even get co-sponsors, much less any potential action in subcommittee. And they surely haven't gotten anyone elected lately. Plus, the ban isn't so much a part of the platform now, as it is a legacy. The old Clinton/DLC'ers wax nostalgic about it, but most of the rest of the leadership has no interest in it what so ever.

[benEzra]

40. The MSM are still True Believers, though. (n/t)

[Caliman73]

43. Actually I think that the MSM is just opportunistic...

Perhaps people who work in the MSM are actually anti-private ownership, but I think that negative coverage of guns and sensational reporting on crimes are more about viewership than a specific agenda. The media wants viewers and add revenue. Most people will tune in to a scary story about kidnapping, or a gun fight, or some killer flu pandemic (remember that?). They will stop tuning in if you continually report that nothing really bad happened today in town. They won't tune in for stories where a crime was prevented. What gets them revenue is a good story about something "potentially" deadly that you HAVE to tune in to find out about...after these messages of course.

[benEzra]

44. That doesn't explain the extreme anti-gun editorializing, though.

or the selective ignorance of guns and gun law, or the complete lack of journalistic skepticism when an anti-gun press release comes across the desk, or the effort that sometimes goes into slanting gun stories that actually take a lot of work to slant (the recent ABC? segment on CHL's vs. mass shooters is a case of the latter). I would say the problem isn't as much journalists themselves as it is the editors and producers, though.

[SteveM]

50. The strongest gun-control lobby is mainstream media...

It also is a shadow of its former self. Gun control suffers when it can no longer rely on the constant drone of propaganda from MSM. However, you do overlook the stated platform of the Democratic Party, and President Obama's continued sentiment favoring bans. As long as these statements and expressions by our leaders continue, the pro-Second Amendment folks will be kept in fighting trim. So, there is no straw man.

Concerning "broad, progressive organizations inside and outside the democratic party," it is my contention that the new front in the struggle over the Second Amendment is in forums like the very one we are on; groups, individuals within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party who are working to end gun-control as an issue. As long as gun-control is clung to like any other prohibitionist scheme -- with its emphasis on moral condemnation -- then that issue will CONTINUE to distract and harm the Democratic Party in its efforts to effectively challenge the problems faced by this country. And as long as Democrats continue to prop up the issue of gun-control, it is not a straw man.

[Pullo]

21. speaking for myself....

This was an important part of my decision to support Obama early on in the Democratic primary. I figured he would be deft enough politically to avoid something like the AWB landmine once he felt out the opposition, whereas HRC would have been daft enough to jump on it as fast as she could.

Also, the current buying frenzy and political intensity of the views of gun owners were still in their infancy last fall compared to now. Back in the early 90's gun owners, and even the NRA, did not become fully engaged until after the the AWB passed. Once Clinton Admin. had crossed that political Rubicon, and gun owners united to put up the stop sign to things like Brady II, arsenal taxes, and a whole laundry list of other anti-gun proposals being floated about at the time. Shall issue CCW laws spread like wildfire.

Now, the gun owning public is MUCH more responsive, and even proactive compared to decade and a half ago, and the President is becoming more aware of it.(even if he still not quite where I'd like him to be) Notice how quickly Holder was told to put a sock in it when he floated the idea of another AWB. There are many, many gun owners who are pro-gun Democrats, and its a mistake to frame the gun debate as a Democrat vs. Republican thing. Many gun owners, right and left, couldn't stand John McCain anyway.

[spin]

23. I also agree with you...

Of course Obama was anti-gun as an Illinois politician. His chances of making to the national political stage would have never existed had he been a pro-gun advocate from that area.

Obama is one very shrewd and wise politician. Who else could have trounced Hillary Clinton, who all the political pundits viewed as the flag bearer of the Democratic Party?

McCain was no real friend of gun owners.

Arizona: Republican John McCain (*C/F-) posed as a strong Second Amendment supporter during the 2000 Republican presidential primaries. But in the next session of Congress, he sponsored the McCain-Lieberman gun-show bill, which would have given the federal government the administrative power to prohibit all gun shows, and to register everyone who attends a gun show. And of course the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law is the most extreme congressional assault on First Amendment rights since the Sedition Acts of the Woodrow Wilson and John Adams administrations.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200411021307.asp

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Speaking to thousands of NRA members who packed the main convention center hall, CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre blasted Sen. John McCain.

The NRA chief harshly criticized McCain's efforts on behalf of the McCain-Feingold bill that would reform campaign financing.

LaPierre asked, "Is it possible that John McCain thinks you have too much freedom?"

LaPierre said McCain's new law would effectively shut the NRA out of the political system by not allowing independent groups from buying TV or radio ads 60 days before a general election.

Had this been true in the last election, LaPierre said, the outcome would have likely been different and Gore would have won.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/5/18/170346.shtml

Gun owners have long memories. McCain would have sold them out faster than Obama will.

[paulsby]

26. mccain is a statist republican

just like statist dems, they tend to be anti-gun rights.

bush wasn't particularly friendly to gun rights either.

dean was the only "real candidate" dem in recent memory that i can think of that had a GOOD record on gun rights.

i agree with you that obama was unlikely to extend his chicago anti-gun position into his federal office.

he;'s not stupid. that's refreshing in a president :)

[aikoaiko]

48. I want to believe.

...but I had hoped that if Obama were just being a shrewd anti-gun politician then he would have adjusted his position more to the center after the Heller decision. After Heller he had the political cover to say that AWBs (as we know them) are unconstitutional. Although Obama supported Heller, it apparently did little to change his rhetoric.

Instead, I think the massive surge in gun and ammo purchases has created an impression that gun owners are seriously worried about an AWB and ammo restrictions. Worried enough to spend lots of money on guns and ammo even in the thick of a terrible recession. This motivation to spend hard earned money must make them worried about what would happen in the polls if an AWB or other ridiculous gun control laws were enacted.

[Statistical]

51. I wouldn't say Obama supported Heller

More like Heller happened and Obama had little choice but to accept SCOTUS decision as required by the seperation of powers in the constitution.

Prior to Heller Obama used the twisted logic that he supports 2nd amendment and also supports a complete ban on handguns in DC.

Heller simply left him no room to twist.

[aikoaiko]

53. i agree, the phrase "accepted Heller" is more accurate than "supported Heller"

thank you.

[virginia mountainman]

7. I wonder..

Who got the job, of duct taping Caroline McCarthy's head together, cause you know, it wants to explode sooooooo baddddddddddd....