bye bye guns. THANK YOU OBAMA!

[Cap-Z-ro]

The reality that deranged individuals will always have guns makes gun restriction an unsafe proposition for potential victims...who gave up their guns/protection.

Regards...

[ResinRat2]

I live in the State of Indiana in the U.S. and have a Concealed Carry Permit (CCP). Personally, I am glad that I am able to exercise this right when I feel the need. Once in a while I go on long trips into Michigan (which recognized the CCP from Indiana) and I feel the need to carry my firearm. Some places are just not as safe as others and at least I will have a chance to defend myself if needed. At home my firearms are nearby, safely locked, but available for instant access. I can have it in my hands and ready to use in less than 10 seconds.

The ownership of firearms requires a responsible attitude. I have been through four training courses in the use and care of firearms; two given by local police departments and two given by Certified NRA instructors. I take firearm safety very seriously and just had my 16 year old son go through a 10 hour NRA Pistol Safety Training course. He thought it was very informative and well done.

Gun Control is implemented for future use by Governments. It may not affect you now, but sometime down the line it may be used to tyrannize citizens. It was done in the past in Germany, and could easily be done again. I disagree with those who think only the military and police (and thus criminals too) should have firearms. This, to me,  is a foolish surrender of your right to self defense.

Obama is no friend to gun owners. He would take that right away from me in a heartbeat.

[AhuraMazda]

Dave,
there was something very sinister in the way all the guns were removed in UK. Of course there was the knee-jerk reaction of the retardted Blair. Freemasons where involved in this plan.

Ofcourse the police has guns available to them but they kill more innocent people than criminals!

[CTG Labs]

Hi AM,

I can see your point, however most guns have always been banned, the banned was just extended to cover immitation and some toy guns as police can't tell the difference in the heat of the moment and people were needlessly being shot.  Preventing people from having immitation firearms doesn't prevent people from having a defence (since they are no defence) and prevents the police firearms unit from having to shoot someone who is commiting a crime with an immitation firearm.

Everyone here has valid comments and I think its just a matter or what you are used to.  It has always been the law in the US that its your right to own firearms, now if they are taken away you feel insecure.  Here they have always been illegal apart from farmers, and so that feels normal to most of us.


Regards,

Dave.

[Liberty]

I find it interesting that there are some that don't seem to understand what a "right" really is.  Some talk as if a "right" is something that can be given or taken away by a government law if they decide they want to.  If it is truly a "right" such as gun ownership, it is something that government has no authority over, because it is a "right".  A "right" is part of the rule book that is made for government to obey (called the Constitution) that says that this is an area that is hands off, and government has no authority to make law in this area.  A "right" is something that can't legally be taken away from a man or woman by a government because to do so would exceed the authority given to government.  A "right" is an area in which government has no authority to make law.  If an illegal law is attempted against a "right", it is an illegal and unconstitutional law and has no true legal authority.  In other words, it is no law.  This is the strength of a "right" that must be understood by those it is intended to protect.