Carrying a Handgun in Washington D.C.?

Proof that Obama is a socialist gun-grabber at heart? Or maybe he's just pandering to Liberals/Democrats/other assorted
citizens of Libtopia.

If that is a serious question, I will say no in my opinion. I think for some people who oppose the second amendment these types of decisions are simply a road block for them to try and get around.

I wonder why those who oppose the second amendment do not strive to get it repealed?

Obama repeatedly states that he supports the Second Amendment, but I'll be damned if I can find even ONE example where he took a public stand in support of it, while examples of him taking public stands against it are plentiful.

And the justices he appointed to the Supreme Court have voted (thankfully, in the minority) against the Second Amendment being a guarantee of an individual right and against it applying to the states.

Also, while Obama talks a good game about violent crimes involving guns, federal prosecutions for it are way done during his administration. He's more concerned with keeping up his bona fides in the culture war by keeping the pro-gun side enraged than actually doing anything to curb violent crime.

Which is cool, private businesses have the right to prohibit weapons. But all they can do is tell you to leave. If you don't, you are trespassing. What if they refused to serve felons? I mean run your SSN through a quick background check.
Hell, they can do this in the time it takes for a table to open up in a restaurant. How long before there would be a lawsuit?
Something to think about. But hey, progress is progress I guess. Fight the power!

Even if I personally think that bearing arms should be more of a privilege than a right, it is a right and should be protected as such.

I've always msintained that gang violence happens away from the 'burbs, so liberals couldn't care less to get people stirred up about that.

In contrast, nearly all the major mass murders since Columbine take place in rich yuppie areas where parents are too zoned out of their kids' lives to notice when they're building bombs in the fucking garage .

You'd think after the parents kept moving the kids' bomb making operation out of the way to park the car something would have clicked.

That's because too many politicians care more about getting elected than what is right. In the end they always choose what is "popular" instead of what is effective.

I can understand that feeling. At least you are being honest about it. Unlike many in the political establishment.

A gun should be treated like a car - prove you can safely operate it and you're good to go.
Wait, maybe not. I see a lot of drivers who do indeed have a license yet can't drive for shit.
Could be why drivers kill and injure thousands every year.

Nearly all accidents are the result of complacency and rarely is it one party's fault. I've avoided many collisions by looking around my surroundings, taking the next exit if i can merge in time (a frequent occurance where i live), moving out the way of asshole tailgaters on the I-5 and slowing the fuck down when I don't think I have good control of my car.

Since we've more or less designed the country around personal transportation, cars won't see banning any time soon, so laws are grossly more loose than they should be. Hell, it wasn't till the 80s that anyone even thought about passing drunk driving laws.

Anybody driving in southern Cali is in my thoughts and prayers. IMO everybody putting a car on that road system should have an attorney draw up a will.

That's not even close to true.

That's interesting, considering how liberal hipsters are given most of the flack from people who disagree with their pro-urban, anti-car "agenda." So do liberals like the suburbs or the city more, or is this not a valid comparison to make? :chris :

Actually enforcement of drunk driving laws was very lax in small towns especially in the 70's.
You pretty much had to be driving into ditches before you were arrested for DUI where I lived.

Eh, it's pretty close. Prior to advocacy by MADD in the early 80s, most states allowed BAC up to 0.15, which is well beyond impaired.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving

So while there were technically drunk driving laws on the books, they were pretty lenient and largely ineffective.

My point is that the mass murders, while at a far higer frequency than the rest of the free world, are still a drop in the bucket compared to gang shootouts that often involve innocent bystanders or robberies at gun point in the 'hoods and barrios. If liberals gave two fucks about gun violence, they'd work on this, and not just shill when another over privileged sociopath flips shit at school.

Efforts to address inner city violence might not get as much attention, but there's quite a bit going on, at least where I live. There is a ton of outreach by non-profit and religious groups, often in collaboration with Boston PD. And if you stop to think about it, some of these things do make the news, every time conservatives like O'Reilly decide to bitch about the programs. Things like midnight basketball might sound silly to the typical suburbanite, but actually are effective down in the trenches.

One would have thought the RR would respond with a chorus of "Private businesses should be entitled to set whatever policy they want on their own premises!"

No?

Yeah, because it's just a game where people take sides, and you guys are all about "winning."

I absolutely agree. I just don't understand where the suburb comment came in.

Look, there are loud people who react vehemently to certain events without putting them in context. Gang violence is right down there with traffic deaths in terms of everyone's (not just liberals) give-a-shit meters.

His reply is going to be "no u. "

If the gang/gun problem went away overnight Liberals would be out of a job! They have no concrete solutions of their own, but they can wag their fingers like nobody's business!

No, it's not a game - by "losing side" I meant the wrong side. Better now?

Because in my town (can't speak for everywhere) the residents of the high crime neighborhoods don't seem to want to do anything about their own kids crime involvement. Nobody will put a foot up their asses. So if they don't give a shit, why should outsiders? When outsiders do try to confront problems and offer solutions they are called racist, and the residents offer excuses (but won't admit the real reasons) up the wazoo as to why their kids/friends are terrorizing their neighborhood.

Some things are so self-evident we shouldn't need to say them.

Shut your mouth. We are the Liberal.