Why is Gun Ownership important to BO?

[gtrman66]

Very interesting article (and no it's not Fox News)...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081120/pl_politico/15835

Would-be appointees quizzed on guns

excerpt:
Tucked in at the end of the questionnaire and listed under “Miscellaneous,” it reads: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

This looks like a setup for gun owners. I for one, take this to mean that BO has some definite plans to reign in gun ownership rights.

[sisyphus]

It is simply to avoid any appearance of hypocrisy.

An administration that says that it is in favor of legal, safe, and responsible gun ownership doesn't want to get blasted in the media if it turns out that some official got busted a few years for owning an unregistered handgun, etc.

[cajun]

When did they start gun registration?

[sisyphus]

New York City and all New Jersey residents, to name two examples, have firearm registration or licensing laws. Clark County, Nevada (where Las Vegas is located) has a requirement that all "concealable" firearms be registered with the Police. Minnesota and some other States has a requirement that you get State permit before purchasing hanguns.

[cajun]

Damn communist states

[sisyphus]

Damn communist states

I think all the people working down on Wall Street would be very suprised to discover they were living in a Communist state.

The thing about state and local gun laws is that, by and large, they tend to reflect not only the will of the people living in each area, but also the particular situation there.

People living in west Texas or Wyoming are going to be dealing with very different issues in their lives than people on the south side of Chicago or the Bronx. A middle-aged salesman driving around the lonely prairies of Texas might very well keep a gun in waistband holster for personal protection while posing no risk to anyone. But the thought of a bunch of twenty year old young men hanging around street corners in Philadelphia, getting into petty arguments over parking spaces and such while carrying handguns, is an invitation for disaster.

Reasonable local laws (with the emphasis on "reasonable" and "local") seem to work best. That is why there really is little, if any, liberal push for any changes in Federal firearm laws.

[cajun]

You hav a point to some extent, the 20 year old punks don't need guns, but what about the 50 year old man that has to walk by these punks on the way to the corner market? It's the extreme libs that want to impose there will on everyone else, under the guise of they know what's best for all of us. I.E. Washington, even after the supreme court ruled that there gun ban was unconstitutional they still refused to allow citizens to possess a hangun, and they have one of the highest homicide rates in the country. They only recognize the parts of the constitution that is convienent to them. Now they want to shut down free speech by bringing back the fairness doctorine, why can't i listen to who i want to? Because they don't want people questioning their agenda.You won't here the truth in the liberal media so we have an alternative. And it chaps there ass they can't keep us in the dark, and dumbed down.

[sisyphus]

I would caution against making too many generalizations.

To begin with, the actual statistics on Washington DC don't bear out its reputation as having the worst murder rate. It is actually lower than in Baltimore, MD and Richmond, VA, cities of similar size and less than an hour's drive from Washington. Baltimore requires gun registration, and Richmond allows concealed carry. And Washington DC is not, and cannot, legally enforce its gun ban now it has been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Secondly, I believe (along with Barack Obama) that the Supreme Court acted appropriately in upholding the Federal Court ruling against the Washington DC gun ban. It WAS too restrictive, and clearly conflicted with the Second Amendment. In striking down the Gun Ban, the Supreme Court gave a very clear illustration of how our system of checks and balances works.

Do "liberal" local lawmakers sometimes pass laws (like the DC gun ban) that go too far? Absolutely. But "conservative" lawmakers do as well. Thats why we have the Constitution and the Judiciary.

Lastly: this talk about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" is nonsense. It simply is just not on the agenda of the Obama administration or the current congress. And even if it were, there would be considerable First Amendment grounds against it. The Fairness Doctrine, maybe, had some use when there was very limited broadcast spectrum available - but in a world of digital radio and cable tv systems, plus the internet - it just doesn't make any sense. Again - this talk about the "Fairness Doctrine" is something that conservative talk radio hosts keep pushing. Maybe they think it is in their interest to present themselves as the only "truthfull" journalists, and that all the rest of the "mainstream media" is in on some sort of conspiracy to fool the American people. Believe that if you want, but it just isn't the case.

[MYCAR47562]

gun ownership is the last check and balance for our goverment. and they know that we the people have forgotten