Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land.
In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage.
Only good shooting, though, right?
Wait … where’s the militia part? You know, where arms are a right, because they are needed to defend life and liberty?
And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners – it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
You mean you didn’t veto that, because you were concentrating on your larger agenda, and it could wait until now?
Besides, that didn’t “expand rights,” it reduced unconstitutional Federal restrictions on our rights.
and from Codrea:
If by that he means take people who have been adjudicated menaces to society and segregating them from those they would harm, not many would argue.
But that’s not what he means.
He wants to end private transfers.
He wants to require everyone in the country, regardless of state laws, to go through the federal system. As in mandate. As in force. As in "or else."
How this squares with “What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne” is left unsaid. Maybe they’re still trying to figure out what works in Chicago.
“Most gun owners know that the word ‘commonsense’ isn't a code word for ‘confiscation’," he declares, withholding the fact that the system, with its requisite forms, sets up a capability to do just that.
And here’s the thing:
If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.
Because guess who else passed those mandatory background checks the president is stumping for here?