Where’s your evidence, Michele? When and where has Obama taken anyone’s guns from them?

I love guns. I think we should be able to own anything the armed forces have, up to and including nuclear missiles. That way it’s unlikely we will ever devolve into a military dictatorship.
Palin likes guns personally but isn’t any better politically on gun control than Obama. McCain’s a phony on the subject, part of the Brady bunch.

yelladawg, when has McCain ever personally forced a woman to carry a baby to full term?
We both know that it’s not about what a candidate has forced, taken, whatever personally. It’s about ideology and voting records.
I’m sure you get that.

For the record, neither Palin nor McCain are nearly as bad on gun control as Obama. They are not perfect, but Obama…
Is already planning on instituting a wider, more permanent “assault weapon” ban, should he make it into office.
Is already on the books as patently and completely against concealed carry, except for law-enforcement and military.
Has already voted in Illinois to try and ban most privately held shotguns, target rifles, and black-powder rifles in the state.
Supported the D.C. ban on personal handguns (before he opposed it, that is).
Has proposed a “5-mile rule” that would close down 90% of the firearm shops in the country.
Like I said, Palin and McCain are not perfect on the topic of firearms, but when compared to their competitors, there is no question whatsoever that they are better. Furthermore, there is absolutely no doubt that Obama will make firearm owners’ lives miserable, more restricted, and more regulated should he make it to office – he has admitted it himself on countless occasions.

No one needs an assault weapon. I wouldn’t mind if the right to bear arms was taken away.

That’s nice, Scott. I would mind. The right to bear arms is one of the basic Constitutional rights.
Assault weapons? No. Basic long guns and hand guns. I absolutely support the right of every American to own one. While I would not require people to own a gun, I self-describe as “pro-gun”.
Would you mind if the right to free speech was taken away? Freedom of association?
Here’s a tough one…freedom of religion. What about when “gay rights” start taking precedence over religious freedom?
What about when a Roman Catholic pharmacy owner has a religious conviction about dispensing abortificants? And Planned Parenthood is suing to force him to do so? Would you mind if that right to religious freedom is taken away?
Or a Christian doctor who only treats married heterosexual couples for infertility – and is being sued by a lesbian couple (even though he helped them find a different doctor in the SAME CLINIC) to provide artificial insemination? Do you mind having THAT freedom of religion taken away?
If you erode one, you erode them all. And they are all being eroded.

I’ve been active in the Democratic party for about 24 years. I have always occupied its tiny right-wing, and I’ve been voted down 122-2 on pro-life resolutions in committee, but I do believe that’s the place for me.
I’m with MzEllen that pharmacists and doctors have First Amendment rights, too. There’s no constitutional right that one individual should force another individual to provide a professional service that violates the professional’s personal conscience.
I think the NRA has done gun owners a disservice over the years, agitating people to oppose their more outlandish positions. I agree with MzEllen that there is a constitutional right to handguns and long guns. The problem has always been that one group wants machine guns and another wants to ban pop pistols (or pointing your finger and saying “Bang”). There’s no way to draw the line that keeps everybody happy, but we waste a lot of time on this issue (although if you live in parts of the northeast, I can feel you pain, some of their laws are pretty goofy).
My personal conscience is that any child I conceive is a child for whom I ever responsible. As for a woman’s right to choose whether to bear a child, I prefer to err on the side of the woman’s better judgment. There’s a difference between allowing abortions and requiring them (and there most certainly are societies that require them). I think there are two kinds of spiritual damage surrounding abortion. First of all, there’s the willful termination of the life of an unwanted child–and I don’t trust government to make that decision for the mother. But there’s also this bizarre need to protest the legal rights of women the protesters don’t even know, to rail against the sins for which we ourselves are not tempted.
And that’s spiritually dangerous.

Can we extend that beyond abortion?
First of all, there’s the willful termination of the life of an unwanted child–and I don’t trust government to make that decision for the mother.
First of all, there’s the willful beating of a wife by her husband – I don’t trust the government to decide whether or not the woman deserves corporal punishment (just an example)
But there’s also this bizarre need to protest the legal rights of women the protesters don’t even know, to rail against the sins for which we ourselves are not tempted.
I have not been tempted to spousal violence. Should I then refrain from railing against the abuse toward spouses?

I always find it interesting when peeps argue their position regarding the “right to bear arms” as if our forefathers were concerned about being able to hunt and shoot their Thanksgiving turkey. GIVE ME A BREAK! The “right to bear arms” was specifically designed to give us the “right” to have and own military weapons so that if the need ever arose for the “people” to form a militia to thwart an oppressive government then they would be properly armed and prepared. If the police and military have sophisticated automatic weapons then “the people” have the right to the same weapons! It amazes me that people can live in the greatest nation since the beginning of time and not understand the sacrifice that our forefathers made to make this nation possible. We have become a nation of cry babies and wimps that take all of our freedoms and liberties for granted. Study our founding fathers and founding documents before you share with the world how shallow your intellect and understanding of history really is!

The “right to bear arms” was specifically designed to give us the “right” to have and own military weapons so that if the need ever arose for the “people” to form a militia to thwart an oppressive government then they would be properly armed and prepared.
I understand that very well.
If the police and military have sophisticated automatic weapons then “the people” have the right to the same weapons!
With my shallow intellect and understanding of history, I remember that nobody expected the Revolution to succeed, given the vast superiority of the British army.
I come from the “land of Michigan Militia”. I understand.

Well, being from New York City, I am not pro-gun. I don’t think the average person should be able to have one. I don’t think the average person is responsible enough, and I do not want my neighbors having one either. As to your other points:
What about when “gay rights” start taking precedence over religious freedom?
I support the rights of gay people to have civil marriage. What the churches do is their own business. If they choose to interfere with civil rights, then they should lose.
What about when a Roman Catholic pharmacy owner has a religious conviction about dispensing abortificants? And Planned Parenthood is suing to force him to do so? Would you mind if that right to religious freedom is taken away?
Not at all. The pharmacist promised to serve all his customers, not
just the ones who don’t believe in abortion.
Or a Christian doctor who only treats married heterosexual couples for infertility – and is being sued by a lesbian couple (even though he helped them find a different doctor in the SAME CLINIC) to provide artificial insemination? Do you mind having THAT freedom of religion taken away?
If the couple can be treated in the same clinic, fine. Doctors shouldn’t have a right choose who they treat or not.

The pharmacist promised to serve all his customers, not
just the ones who don’t believe in abortion.
Where does it say that? Most people go into business to make a profit.
If the couple can be treated in the same clinic, fine. Doctors shouldn’t have a right choose who they treat or not.
As I said, all freedoms are being eroded.

again, michele doesn’t know what she’s talking about. just trying to rile the crowd… akin to guy thomas.

“Can we extend that beyond abortion?
First of all, there’s the willful termination of the life of an unwanted child–and I don’t trust government to make that decision for the mother.
First of all, there’s the willful beating of a wife by her husband – I don’t trust the government to decide whether or not the woman deserves corporal punishment (just an example)
But there’s also this bizarre need to protest the legal rights of women the protesters don’t even know, to rail against the sins for which we ourselves are not tempted.
I have not been tempted to spousal violence. Should I then refrain from railing against the abuse toward spouses?”
Fair enough. I live in Texas, about 60 miles from the infamous Crawford. Until 1974, Texas law, carried over from the Spanish colonial period, allowed a husband to kill his wife if he caught her in an act of adultery, although he was not allowed to kill the man or woman she was doing it with. Believe it or not, there was controversy over repealing the law, and similar statutes existed in several other states.
Should you refrain from railing against the abuse against spouses? That’s my inclination. Railing for the sake of railing gets you nowhere. Provide shelter, pick up a club and knock the abusing spouse up the side of the head, if appropriate, but don’t just rail.
I suppose as your Christian brother I should be willing to listen to you emote, if you really need to emote to get on your track, but I confess that’s not my natural inclination. I am much more inclined to donate a day to a clinic for the poor than I am to hold up a protest sign for more health insurance, to extend the example.
The same thing on abortion. I know a Baptist pastor who is very proud of his pro-life stance, so when I reached the limits of my resources to help a colleague at work who was pregnant and considering abortion and didn’t have funds, I asked him for help. He said he was disinterested. He had attended several luncheons where the needs of women were discussed, he proudly informed me, and he consistently supported pro-life candidates. He told me in no uncertain terms he saw no reason to shell out a few bucks to help her get prenatal care, much less help with the rent a few months later. His role was to lead other Christians to make the right political decisions.
She eventually got enough cash to see the doctor and take some days off in late pregnancy, and carried the baby to term, with the help of a member of the Unitarian-Universalist church in Austin, of all the totally unexpected sources. I’m no fan of the UU in general, but apparently even they can do the right thing occasionally.
Several years after that event, I visited the UU’s when a friend was giving a concert there. Their pastor also spoke, and gave a 30-minute harangue on how her first abortion was a right of passage, but her second abortion was a celebration of her right to choose.
To me, this was really murder, not that she cared one whit for my opinion. A guest in their sanctuary, I was nonetheless inclined to give her a piece of my mind. I finally walked up to the lady and just told her this Baptist was praying for her. She glared. The senior minister gave me a contemptuous look. I left. Next time my friend performs, I’ll listen to the tape.
I’ll repeat. There’s nothing Biblical about feeling superior on account of someone else’s sin. There’s a lot that’s Biblical about acting to help. And I’m glad to read your comments. They add a lot to this blog.

Scott R,
“I don’t think the average person is responsible enough, and I do not want my neighbors having one either”
I wonder if your neighbors consider you irresponsible as well.
You people wonder why you get labeled elitists.
dontreadonme

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. If you are not happy with that or don’t believe in in, get the f*** out of the country. I would.