for the deframers:
Re: the Bill Of Rights
Were it not for a de facto 2ndA, there would be no 1stA.
A de facto 2ndA made possible the 1stA; and all the rest for that matter.
If you are trying to tear down the Bill Of Rights, why don't you do it in chronological order? Start with the 1stA.
As long as we have ordinary citizens, we will have an ordinary militia (as in the Framers 1890 definition, not a 1990 ultra-patriot definition,nor a neo-liberal corruption), as distinguished from the land and naval forces.
If you keep insisting on tearing down The Constitution, it's the obligation of the militia to 'organize', and prevent you from doing that. The aggregate common sense of our ordinary citizens has so far prevented your achievment of that goal.
Then, having explained the meaning of the 2ndA, they'll go back to: farming, making things, selling things, hunting, fishing, golfing, playing baseball and football and basketball, driving stockcars, driving trucks, giving health care, handling fires, looking out for your safety and welfare, staying 'trained' (largely through recreational activities, and at their own expense), and just doing what ordinary citizens ordinarily do.
Unordinary citizens can't seem to grasp those tenets. They're are too far removed from them.
Probably because they've never participated in protecting them.
Although, through their profligate use of the 1stA, they no doubt do consider themselves as 'having participated'.

Politico posted a link to the Federal Papers filed in Federal Court in Chicago linking Obama to the $112,000 transaction in the Tony Rezko Federal Corruption Trial - apparently in the $112,000 transactions $10,000 of that amount was Obama's cut and the $10,000 found its way into Obama's Campaign Treasury.

Is this appearing to be a Surprise in September ???

Check out the link below.

The Chicago Sun-Times also ran an article on this on Friday June 27.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_080627_obamarez_pdf.html

.

Politico posted a link to the Federal Papers filed in Federal Court in Chicago linking Obama to the $112,000 transaction in the Tony Rezko Federal Corruption Trial - apparently in the $112,000 transactions $10,000 of that amount was Obama's cut and the $10,000 found its way into Obama's Campaign Treasury.

Is this appearing to be a Surprise in September ???

Check out the link below.

The Chicago Sun-Times also ran an article on this on Friday June 27.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_080627_obamarez_pdf.html

.

Chris

McCain won the week again - Obama looks so bad.

Obama corruption in Chicago - more details coming out.

Today's Chicago Sun-Times:

**********************************

REZKO TRIAL | Feds reveal he denied pay-to-play remarks described by 2 in court

June 27, 2008Recommend (17)

BY NATASHA KORECKI Federal Courts Reporter nkorecki@suntimes.com
Newly unsealed court files in the Tony Rezko corruption case show that federal agents interviewed Gov. Blagojevich "on multiple occasions" and that the governor denied having conversations described in court by two key prosecution witnesses.

That raises the possibility that either the witnesses lied under oath or that Blagojevich lied to federal agents about statements he was said to have made, tying state business to support for his campaign.

**********************************

Later in the article, the paper reports Governor's office confirms "discussions" with federal authorities.

Obama is linked in the papers - Resko had a deal involving $112,000 - the funds were distributed around - Obama's cut in all the transactions was the Obama campaign ended up with $10,000.

.

Chris

McCain won the week again - Obama looks so bad.

Obama corruption in Chicago - more details coming out.

Today's Chicago Sun-Times:

**********************************

REZKO TRIAL | Feds reveal he denied pay-to-play remarks described by 2 in court

June 27, 2008Recommend (17)

BY NATASHA KORECKI Federal Courts Reporter nkorecki@suntimes.com
Newly unsealed court files in the Tony Rezko corruption case show that federal agents interviewed Gov. Blagojevich "on multiple occasions" and that the governor denied having conversations described in court by two key prosecution witnesses.

That raises the possibility that either the witnesses lied under oath or that Blagojevich lied to federal agents about statements he was said to have made, tying state business to support for his campaign.

**********************************

Later in the article, the paper reports Governor's office confirms "discussions" with federal authorities.

Obama is linked in the papers - Resko had a deal involving $112,000 - the funds were distributed around - Obama's cut in all the transactions was the Obama campaign ended up with $10,000.

.

McCain won the week

Obama gets SLAMMED again in the FEDERAL CORRUPTION TRIAL

PROSECUTOR'S HOLDING BACK FOR FALL SURPRISE ???

From yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times:

***************************************

Prosecutors held back on using Obama's name

June 27, 2008

BY NATASHA KORECKI Federal Courts Reporter nkorecki@suntimes.com

Barack Obama's name could have been invoked more at the corruption trial of his former fund-raiser Tony Rezko.

But it appears prosecutors opted against bringing Obama into the mix during the two-month trial.

Newly unsealed documents show that prosecutors sought to call witnesses to testify about Rezko's ties to Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

The Illinois senator was the recipient of "straw" campaign contributions made by others on behalf of Rezko -- money that Obama has since given to charities.

The documents indicate that prosecutors considered offering witnesses to explore why Rezko used others to contribute to Obama and also to Blagojevich, and U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve ruled that they could. But they did not end up offering any such testimony during the trial.

"Witnesses will testify that Rezko was a long-standing supporter and fund-raiser of Barack Obama," prosecutors wrote.

Later, St. Eve ruled that Obama references would be allowed into the trial, but prosecutors apparently opted not to invoke Obama's name.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1027788,CST-NWS-rezkoside27.stng

McCain won the week

Obama gets SLAMMED again in the FEDERAL CORRUPTION TRIAL

PROSECUTOR'S HOLDING BACK FOR FALL SURPRISE ???

From yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times:

***************************************

Prosecutors held back on using Obama's name

June 27, 2008

BY NATASHA KORECKI Federal Courts Reporter nkorecki@suntimes.com

Barack Obama's name could have been invoked more at the corruption trial of his former fund-raiser Tony Rezko.

But it appears prosecutors opted against bringing Obama into the mix during the two-month trial.

Newly unsealed documents show that prosecutors sought to call witnesses to testify about Rezko's ties to Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

The Illinois senator was the recipient of "straw" campaign contributions made by others on behalf of Rezko -- money that Obama has since given to charities.

The documents indicate that prosecutors considered offering witnesses to explore why Rezko used others to contribute to Obama and also to Blagojevich, and U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve ruled that they could. But they did not end up offering any such testimony during the trial.

"Witnesses will testify that Rezko was a long-standing supporter and fund-raiser of Barack Obama," prosecutors wrote.

Later, St. Eve ruled that Obama references would be allowed into the trial, but prosecutors apparently opted not to invoke Obama's name.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1027788,CST-NWS-rezkoside27.stng

This guy is so dirty and stupid. Just Google these:

McCain Albanian Million
McCain Flip Flops
McCain Songbird
McCain Womanizing
McCain Infidelity
McCain Lobbyists
McCain Temper

McCain's Friends
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEROVh8zK4

http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0005

http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0007
5 McCain Allies and Advisors Made Millions on Iran Business
Progressive Media USA Research
PUBLISHED: June 02, 2008
While John McCain took a strong stance on sanctions against Iran in today's speech at AIPIAC, many of McCain's advisers, surrogates and fundraisers have made a living representing or leading companies determined to sidestep sanctions and continue doing business with Iran.
"We should privatize the sanctions against Iran by launching a worldwide divestment campaign. As more people, businesses, pension funds, and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already. Years ago, the moral clarity and conviction of civilized nations came together in a divestment campaign against South Africa, helping to rid that nation of the evil of apartheid. In our day, we must use that same power and moral conviction against the regime in Iran, and help to safeguard the people of Israel and the peace of the world."
--John McCain at AIPAC, 6/2/08
U.S. Treasury: All Trade And Investment Activities With Iran Are Prohibited
"Effective March 16, 1995, as a result of Iranian sponsorship of international terrorism and Iran's active pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12957 prohibiting U.S. involvement with petroleum development in Iran. On May 6, 1995, he signed Executive Order 12959, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") as well as the ISDCA, substantially tightening sanctions against Iran.
"On August 19, 1997, the President signed Executive Order 13059 clarifying Executive Orders 12957 and 12959 and confirming that virtually all trade and investment activities with Iran by U.S. persons, wherever located, are prohibited. [U.S. Treasury Department, accessed on 5/21/08]
Carly Fiorina, Chief Economic Adviser
Fiorina Tapped To Head the RNC Victory Fund, Work Closely With McCain. According to National Journal's CongressDaily, "Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard and Frank Donatelli, a lobbyist and former White House political director under President Reagan, will work closely with the McCain campaign. Fiorina will oversee the RNC Victory fund, the entity that historically has raised money for voter-turnout and party-building efforts to support the party's presidential nominee and other GOP candidates nationwide." [National Journal, Congress Daily 3/7/08]
Fiorina Has "Become The Face Of McCain's Economic Team." In an article describing Carly Fiorina's rise within the ranks of the McCain campaign, the Washington Post wrote, "Since McCain installed her last month at the Republican National Committee, the once-high-flying chief executive has held conference calls, made near-daily television appearances and become the face of McCain's economic team." [Washington Post, 4/2/08]
Forbes: Hewlett Packard Exported Goods To Dubai To Open Up Markets In Iran. In the April 12, 2004 issue a Forbes magazine story entitled, "Trading With The Enemy" reported, "If you want to get around export controls, just sell the product to a front company in Dubai. The middlemen will take it from there... Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Microsoft, among many other U.S. companies, keep Dubai offices and are favorites these days among Iranian traders in Dubai. Reason? Strong demand for 'anything high-tech for military or oil services,' says Bolurfrushan of the Iranian Business Council. [Forbes, 4/12/04]
• 1997: Hewlett Packard Joined Forces With Redington to Form Redington Gulf To Open Up Markets To Iran. According to Al-Bawaba, "Commencing operations in 1997, with their head office in the UAE, Redington Gulf currently has country offices located at UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt with a team of over 100 professionals managing these offices. The company aims at increasing its market share and expanding its reach in the Middle East through more in country offices. Redington and HP partnership was launched in the Middle East six years ago for one market - Iran, and one product group - IPG. Today it boasts of covering the entire region and across multiple product groups and support services." [Al-Bawaba, 10/7/03]
• 1999: HP Manager Said "We Are Optimistic... Iran Is A Big Market For Hewlett Packard Printers." While other IT companies were wary to target Iranian markets due to sanctions, Hewlett Packard maintained it's ability to sell products to the country through a joint venture. Albrecht Ferling, HP's Middle East general manager said, "We are optimistic. We have to wait for changes. Iran is a big market for Hewlett Packard printers. Our growth rate there is 50 per cent." [Gulf News, 11/1/99]
• 2003: Fiorina Touted Success In Middle East In The Face Of Falling Domestic Revenue. In a conference call releasing Hewlett Packard's earnings for the first quarter of 2003, CEO Carly Fiorina said, "Our revenue shortfalls were largely confined to the U.S. market, as weak commercial spending continued." She added, "In the Americas, revenue declined 7% sequentially because of weakness in the U.S. and Latin America. Canada, on the other hand, reported solid sequential revenue growth. The strongest performance was in Europe, Middle East, and Africa where revenue was up more than 6% from the previous quarter." [Hewlett Packard Q1 2003 Earnings Conference Call, Fair Disclosure Wire, 2/25/03]
• 2003: Under Carly Fiorina, Redington Gulf Surpassed $100 Million In Annual Sales. In a 2003 press release, Redington Gulf announced that it had crossed the $100 million milestone in shipments from Hewlett Packard across all product groups. [Al-Bawaba, 10/7/03]
Charlie Black, Senior Political Adviser
Charlie Black Earned $800,000 From 1999 - 2002 For His Firm Lobbying For General Electric Capital Services. Charlie Black was a registered lobbyist for General Electric Capital Services, a subsidiary of General Electric Co., from 1999-2002. His firm, BKSH & Associates earned $800,000 from the lobbying activities. [Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, accessed 5/20/08]
• 2000: While Black Served As Their Lobbyist, GE Supplied Hydroelectric Generators To Iran. In 2000, General Electric Canada Inc. agreed to supply four hydroelectric generators to Iran Water and Power Resources Development Co. According to the Globe & Mail "William Thompson, the city's comptroller, filed a shareholders' resolution yesterday demanding that GE's board of directors create a committee to review the company's business operations in Iran, which has been classified as a 'sponsor of terrorism' by the U.S. federal government." [Globe and Mail, 2/11/03]
• General Electric Halted New Business From Iran In 2005, But Left The Door Open For Future Commerce With Iran. In February 2005, the Associated Press reported, "General Electric Co., which has been accused of collecting 'blood money' by doing business in Iran, will stop accepting any new orders for business in the country, company officials said... The decision, which became effective Tuesday, comes amid tensions and threats of sanctions over Iran's nuclear program." Gary Sheffer, a GE spokesman said, "This moratorium on new orders will be re-evaluated as conditions relating to Iran change." [Associated Press, 2/3/05]
Grant Aldonas, Economic Policy Adviser
Grant Aldonas Is An Economic Policy Adviser To John McCain. According to John McCain's website, Grant Aldonas serves as an economic policy adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign. [JohnMcCain.com, accessed 5/21/08]
• Grant Aldonas Was A Registered Lobbyist For Mittal Steel In 2005 And 2007. According to the Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, Grant Aldonas registered as a lobbyist for Mittal Steel USA in the years 2005 & 2007. [Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, accessed 5/21/08]
• The SEC Announced That Mittal Steel Was "Indirectly Subsidizing A Terrorist Haven." The Securities and Exchange Commission listed Mittal Steel USA as having links to "countries designated as state sponsors of terror." Defending his decision to publish the names of companies doing business with Iran, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said, "No investor should ever have to wonder whether his or her investments or retirement savings are indirectly subsidizing a terrorist haven or genocide state." [BBC, 7/6/07, SEC via The Jewish Policy Center, accessed 5/21/08]
Peter Madigan, Fundraiser
Lobbyist Peter Madigan Serves As A Bundler For John McCain. According to Public Citizen, Peter Madigan serves as a bundler for John McCain's presidential campaign, although the amount he has raised remains undisclosed. Madigan is a lobbyist with Johnson, Madigan, Peck Boland & Stewart. [Public Citizen, accessed 5/21/08]
• Madigan Earned Up To $50,000 As A Lobbyist For Shell Oil In 2002. According to the Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, Peter Madigan was a lobbyist for Shell Oil Company in 2002, earning between $40,000 and $50,000 for his firm. [Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, accessed 5/21/08]
• The SEC Announced That Royal Dutch Shell Was "Indirectly Subsidizing A Terrorist Haven." The Securities and Exchange Commission listed Royal Dutch Shell as having links to "countries designated as state sponsors of terror." Defending his decision to publish the names of companies doing business with Iran, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said, "No investor should ever have to wonder whether his or her investments or retirement savings are indirectly subsidizing a terrorist haven or genocide state." [BBC, 7/6/07, SEC via The Jewish Policy Center, accessed 5/21/08]
Randy Scheunemann, Defense And Foreign Policy Coordinator
Randy Scheunemann Is McCain's Defense And Foreign Policy Coordinator. Randy Scheunemann, a former national security aide to Bob Dole and Trent Lott serves as McCain's defense and foreign policy coordinator. [Washington Post, 10/2/07]
• Randy Scheunemann Lobbied For BP Amoco On Matters Concerning International Oil Production. According to the Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database, in 1999 and 2000 Randy Scheunemann lobbied on behalf of BP Amoco on matters concerning international oil production. [Senate Lobbying Disclosure database, accessed 5/21/08]
• The SEC Announced That BP Was "Indirectly Subsidizing A Terrorist Haven." The Securities and Exchange Commission listed British Petroleum as having links to "countries designated as state sponsors of terror." Defending his decision to publish the names of companies doing business with Iran, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said, "No investor should ever have to wonder whether his or her investments or retirement savings are indirectly subsidizing a terrorist haven or genocide state." [BBC, 7/6/07, SEC via The Jewish Policy Center, accessed 5/21/08]

Old Adulterer Traitor McBush supports Islamic KLA Terrorists.

John McCain armed Kosovo Islamic terrorists
Americans of Albanian heritage collected a million dollars in one evening for the presidential campaign of Republican Senator John McCain, said the Albanian American Civic League yesterday, the lobby group headed by former Congressman Joe DioGuardi. A reception for McCain was held January 22 at the Saint Regis Hotel in Manhattan, and the senator, who is now leading in the runoff for the Republican party candidacy in the November elections, cut his campaign in Florida by one day to attend this gathering.
"Even in 1998 when we had problems with Milosevic, McCain did everything that we asked of him to the benefit of the Albanian people, including arming the KLA", announced DioGuardi. "We are American Albanians and we need a leader who will strengthen this country... We must support John McCain because he did everything we asked of him for Kosovo, from supporting the Kosovo Liberation Army to supporting the independence of Kosovo. Two years ago he spoke in Brussels and said that independence is the only solution", concluded this former congressman who has been fighting for the independence of Kosovo and Metohija for more than twenty years.
McCain's Top Strategist Lobbied For Iran-Linked Firm

In the summer of 2005, John McCain's chief strategist Charlie Black, working for his firm Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healey, was paid $60,000 to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of the Chinese oil conglomerate CNOOC. At the time, CNOOC was mounting an aggressive bid to buy Unocal, a California-based oil giant, and Black was tasked with churning up congressional support. But the bid ultimately fell through, in part because of objections over the China oil industry's ties to Iran, a country in which it had already invested tens of millions of dollars.
"This transaction poses a clear threat to the energy and national security of the United States," wrote Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican. "U.S. national energy security depends on sufficient energy supplies to support U.S. and global economic growth. But those supplies are threatened by China's aggressive tactics to lock up energy supplies around the world that are largely dedicated for their own use."
OLD Adulterer Songbird McBush's National Co-Chair Lobbyist Undercutting the War on Terror. Why? How does he benefit?

Federal officials say they have not persuaded foreign banks to open their books to investigators and that in this country, a law that would have allowed the United States to penalize foreign banks that did not cooperate was blocked last year by a single United States senator.
That single senator was Phil Gramm, then a member of the Senate Banking Committee. Given that al Qaeda could not have launched an operation on the scale of the World Trade Center attacks deprived of finances, tracking down and putting a stop to money laundering by terrorist organizations should have been and should be today a priority in any national security effort. Efforts to put the screws on foreign banks prior to 2001 met with resistance in the Bush White House, but it quickly reversed course after the attacks. Phil Gramm, though single-handedly responsible for blocking the bill, felt no such inkling.

OLD Adulterer Songbird Make it a Hundred Traitor McBush & his Lobbyists Friends are Corrupt! Why are you hiding your Military Records, Old Adulterer Songbird McBush?

I can see girls and women needing a gun for protection, but only a coward man would need one.

I do not think the Supreme court decision will have any discernible consequences during this election. The primary purposes of government are generally considered to be to protect individual liberty but not as an absolute right, life and property.

Sadly the police and local governments in many cities have failed in the second, as well as third, of their basic responsibilities. Gun control laws are only somewhat successful if they are vigorously enforced, which seldom happens. Therefore upon further reflection of the court decision, I think a majority were correct, only because in the contemporary era, people should have effective ways of self-defense.

Why is that that its always semi-literate, angry reactionary guys who, in foaming at the mouth about Obama, insist on submitting their boring rants 2, 3 or 4 times??

legan00@ccny.cuny.edu - I am sorry to hear about your mugging. I, too, was held up once at gunpoint and robbed, along with my wife and (at the time) 9 year old daughter. That was in 1998 in London, England, near the theater district. I reported this to the police and was told that most of the weapons used by gangs were smuggled into England from Russia, via Finland. There was absolutely nothing they could do to stop that smuggling. Likewise, according to DOJ statistics, virtually all of the guns used by gangs in this country are either stolen or also smuggled into this country. Where gun control exists, only the criminals have guns.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

How many members of the Supreme Court have been held at gun point? Less than two years ago, I had a gun pointed to my face while the perpetrator --who couldn't have been a day over twenty-- robbed all of my money. The startling reality is that well over 90% of the guns involved in gun-related crimes here in New York City are from outside New York state, generally from states in the South where gun control is as bad a word as liberal. Mayor Bloomberg has championed the gun control issue, and let us hope he finds more company in light of the Supreme Court's latest decision. When liberals legislate from the bench, they're activists or radicals; but when conservatives do they're strict constructionists? Maybe if these Reaganites on the bench had actually had some experience with gun violence, or if they'd allow the possession of a handgun in the building where they work, I'd have a little more faith in this never venerable institution we call our Supreme Court. In reality this decision will mean very little to the majority of respondents. This decision will mean more black and Latino kids will die this year and next. But those Reaganites don't care if black kids or brown kids die. Kennedy could've been the hero on this decision, but don't ever put your faith in a Reaganite. It's easier to kowtow to Wayne LaPierre and the N.R.A. than it is to stand up for the black & brown kids of our cities who die senselessly each year. Besides, Justice Kennedy needed some form of saving grace at the Country Club, what with his Guantanamo decision two weeks back that infuriated the right. Justice Kennedy, you are a coward. And to all of you chickenhawks on here, tell me how you feel after having a gun pointed to your head. Tell me how much of a man you feel like then. Tell me if Wayne Lapierre and Antonin Scalia are the ones you want to be taking your marching orders from.

Idiots 1, America 0.

New York City Secession 2010

NObody has flip flop more the Mccain and here's the proof. Also see how other Republicans viewed Mccain during the Republican Primaries before they dumped on the Mccain Wagon. Watch Below:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Does anyone really believe Mccain wants to be president, I mean really? Insiders in the Mccain campaign have serious doubts if Mccain truly wants to be president. He acts like he wishes he knew how to get out of it they say. He is like the dog who caught the car when it stopped and now doesn't know what to do with it. He wants to lose I believe, being president has never been some life long dream and certainly not at this time in his life. All his life he has been a lazy man who just skated by. Even in the military he was a slacker, never better then average, worse then most. President, I don't think so and he is beginning to realize it.

Does anyone believe if Mccain was elected he would survive the first year? He has already cut back on his campaigning, he works a four day week. The man is dying before our eyes.

The Slimy Fish Obama flip flopping again on the issue - how could that happen ???

Really ???

I really do not believe that the Slimy Fish Obama would attempt to flip-flop again on a major issue.

What is this 3 times in one week ????

Chris are you paying attention or are we just playing games here and pretending not to notice ???? The media has to call Obama on this. This is one major reason the press has met its downfall - when something like this happens, the press LOVES to ignore solid stories like the Slimy Fish Obama flip flopping again.

.

The Slimy Fish Obama flip flopping again on the issue - how could that happen ???

Really ???

I really do not believe that the Slimy Fish Obama would attempt to flip-flop again on a major issue.

What is this 3 times in one week ????

Chris are you paying attention or are we just playing games here and pretending not to notice ???? The media has to call Obama on this. This is one major reason the press has met its downfall - when something like this happens, the press LOVES to ignore solid stories like the Slimy Fish Obama flip flopping again.

.

The Slimy Fish Obama flip flopping again on the issue - how could that happen ???

Really ???

I really do not believe that the Slimy Fish Obama would attempt to flip-flop again on a major issue.

What is this 3 times in one week ????

Chris are you paying attention or are we just playing games here and pretending not to notice ???? The media has to call Obama on this. This is one major reason the press has met its downfall - when something like this happens, the press LOVES to ignore solid stories like the Slimy Fish Obama flip flopping again.

.

DDAWD is speaking for the Obama Campaign which is completely out of touch with America - why dont you attempt to deceive your way out of this issue too - ask David the Deceiver Axelrod.

Obama has already insulted small town people who cling to guns and religion this year.

So why in the world would Obama attempt to put out a press release indicating that Obama was clinging to guns ???

OH Obama did do that today !!!

Thank you very much.

.

DDAWD is speaking for the Obama Campaign which is completely out of touch with America - why dont you attempt to deceive your way out of this issue too - ask David the Deceiver Axelrod.

Obama has already insulted small town people who cling to guns and religion this year.

So why in the world would Obama attempt to put out a press release indicating that Obama was clinging to guns ???

OH Obama did do that today !!!

Thank you very much.

.

DDAWD is speaking for the Obama Campaign which is completely out of touch with Americas - why dont you attempt to deceive your way out of this issue too - ask David the Deceiver Axelrod.

Obama has already insulted small town people who cling to guns and religion this year.

So why in the world would Obama attempt to put out a press release indicating that Obama was clinging to guns ???

OH Obama did do that today !!!

Thank you very much.

.

DDAWD is speaking for the Obama Campaign which is completely out of touch with American - why dont you attempt to deceive your way out of this issue too - ask David the Deceiver Axelrod.

Thank you very much.

.

DDAWD is speaking for the Obama Campaign which is completely out of touch with American - why dont you attempt to deceive your way out of this issue too - ask David the Deceiver Axelrod.

Thank you very much.

.

Obama was against guns before he was for guns, is that pretty much the whole story???

.

Obama was against guns before he was for guns, is that pretty much the whole story???

.

Gun laws have never meant anything. I have a gun permit but carried a gun long before it was legal in Florida. Most of the time the consequences for an illegal gun or carrying a gun was little more then you would lose the gun. Most of the people I know could care less about gun laws as far as governing their own actions.

_____________
How effective do you guys think the gun law was in the first place? I think that principle should override everything. The Constitution isn't a death pact, but it should be considered the starting point. This has been a law that has been in the books since the 70's, I believe, but DC is still one of the more violent places in the US

Posted by: DDAWD | June 26, 2008 9:30 PM

These rulings will put front and center the Supreme Court which the "big dog" is ABORTION RIGHTS.

It may mobilize women to vote for Obama.

How effective do you guys think the gun law was in the first place? I think that principle should override everything. The Constitution isn't a death pact, but it should be considered the starting point. This has been a law that has been in the books since the 70's, I believe, but DC is still one of the more violent places in the US

Justice Scalia's comment about the Guantanamo habeas corpus cases is more applicable here: more Americans will die because of this decision.

I really could care less if I'm safer or not.

The real value is that I, as an individual, have finally been given the respect I deserve to make that choice for myself. I don't have to rely on my tax dollars and public servants for my security, I can do it myself, if I want.

I don't care if I'm safer--I do care that I'm finally given some respect.

I live near Juarez, Mexico, where there have been close to 500 gang-related killings since the first of the year. It is my understanding that some U.S. criminals freely, even if illegally, make money selling guns in Mexico - assault weapons, too, very efficient killing weapons. My point? The NRA is a front for gun manufacturers. They will now attempt to erase all the gun-owning restrictions possible. Gun shows will proliferate. Am I worried about defending my home? I have lived in several residences in two states, traveled (by camping out) all over the western U.S. and not once have I felt the need to own a handgun. When I hear about yet another child accidentally killing his brother or sister by getting his dad's handgun, when I hear of an angry employee deciding to shoot up his workplace, when I hear of yet another school or college shooting, I just ask myself: How does the NRA president sleep at night when the violence keeps escalating? Those "polls" saying all U.S. citizens are fine with what we've got now sure didn't contact me. Here's what I would like to see: complete eradication of anyone but law enforcement buying automatic weapons. A hunter can use a shotgun or rifle, no problem but why in bloody hell does anyone need a machine gun?

Once upon a time, in a land far far way, believe it or not, there was once a political party called the Republicans, who stood for fiscal responsibility, limited government, defense of civil liberties, as well as society based on law and order.

Chris, I got goose bumps. Please check the fact for us.

Re: madhatter

Thanks for sharing the information. Now I see why his former Church was shocked--no body disowns anyone who has a relationship for 20 years for political inconvenience! Now I see why Obama mentioned his grandmother, "the-typical-white-woman," when he talked about Rev. Wright, which I thought irrelevant.

I thought it was a gossip, but it is not. Now I see Rev. Wright's point who knows him better--for 20 years, and Obama's acclaimed speech in that he says "Rev. Wright does not know me that well." That means he does not care how long such a relation would mean for him...

I must have to correct my earlier posting that Senator McCain has to fire Charles Black. Correction--sorry for my mistake.

I rather vote for someone who maintains a long term relationship with his/her associates and defends them no matter how...I see.

I did not pay attention...Wow, it was based on his cold caculation knowing that Rev. Wright was that low-class...attending the Church only for votes...the media were crazy saying that it was about judgment, but it is not at all.

Will he do the same to Senator Hillary Clinton and to the Democratic Party?

Thanks again, correct me if I am wrong.

DC Girl Opined

If I hear someone in my apartment, should I (a) pull out my gun and then call 911, or
Bang!

Bye-bye, criminal.

my Comment:

Or bye-bye building maintenance man sent in to fix a leak or bye bye neighbor's kid who happens to be in the apartment next door when your bullets miss the "intruder" and go through the wall or bye bye kid who happens to find the gun or bye bye you when the crooks start shooting first and checking to see if you are armed later.
The Statistics show that more problems are caused than solved by owning a gun. But we won't realize this until lots of guns are pryed out of the cold dead hands of the gun users that don't understand this and tens of thousands of more people are killed by senseless gun violence. This is a very very sad day for this country.

The consent of the people to be governed was mustered under the ratification of the Bill of Rights. People said, Yes, okay, we'll continue to be part of this republic and let legislators from your state participate in making decisions for ours, but only if there are certain limitations on what can be done. Here's a list." One item on the list? We can own guns.

You don't see this as part of the consent of the governed, but only because it happened a long time ago. If you tried to repeal the amendment, you'd find out that it is still part of the consent-equation.

As an unrepresented American residing in DC (over half-a-million population, no congressman, no Senators), I would much rather have access to ballots than to bullets.

What ever happened to "Just Power derives from the Consent of the Governed"?
-- citizenw, Washington, Demesne of Congress

nclwtk:
the reason no citizen has stopped a mass shooting is because they unlike the shooter followed the law, because they were denied the right to legally protect themselves innocent people died.

"Definitely Obama's response to this difficult and devisive issue is by far the most presidential, measured, thoughtful, balanced, cautious."

only if you are a complete and total idiot with an iq sub-bush.

Have you ever had dealings in guns? They are one of the most tightly regulated items you can sell. As far as making a few extra bucks, I would doubt it any licensed dealer is going to throw away their business to make a extra few bucks. Not to mention the penalties can be 10 to 20 years in prison. By the way, those are still legal guns that have gotten into the wrong hands. Same thing applies regardless how the bad guys got them. Except for Saturday night specials guns are not cheap. What do you think a gun on the street is worth? In most cases not even what it cost at the store. No one is paying $3,000. for a gun. Only stolen guns are worth dealing in, guns you paid nothing for and there are enough around. Who is going to buy a gun for $500.00 in Miami and take it to NY to sell for $700. if you could even get that. Even if you had 50 of them it would not be worth it and crossing state lines breaking who knows how many federal laws plus facing a zillion years in jail who is going to be stupid enough to do this? You have been watching too much Sopranos.
I used to own a bar in Hollywood Florida near the dog track and all kinds of wise guys hung around my place. Trust me, there are" WAY" easier ways of making money where you don't break a zillion federal laws. Who needs that grief.

--------------
Actually, that isn't how most illegal guns get onto the street.

What usually happens is that someone drives from an area where they can't buy guns to where they can (from NY and DC to Virginia, usually). Then they to go to a corrupt dealer or get a local resident (a "straw man") to go instead, and pay cash for a large quantity of guns. Sometimes the dealer reports the guns as missing or stolen, or sometimes the dealer just puts down fictitious info about the buyer.

Then the guns are driven back to the inner cities and sold to gangs, criminals, etc.

An easy way to make a nice chunk o' change.

Posted by: Doug in NYC | June 26, 2008 4:34 PM

"This is such a non issue to most of the country, even here in NYC where Mayor Bloomberg has made it one of his top issues. While guns are in the news on an almost daily basis it is no where near the economy, gas prices and the war.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 26, 2008 4:23 PM"

For some perspective the ruling today was met with nearly universal disagreement from DC mayor Adrian Fenty down to DC residents. I'm not suggesting that this is a national issue just trying to show how DC has reacted to it. The city will still try to restrict guns as much as possible through secondary means.

"Gun violence in the "hood" is not perpetrated with legal weapons. It is perpetrated with illegally obtained weapons.
Posted by: Capt. Howard | June 26, 2008 3:36 PM"

As far as city residents are concerned, this is a distinction without a difference.

Yes, I am safer in my own home because I can now legally own my gun. I am safer from criminals, and I am safer from being prosecuted under some nonsense law.

If I hear someone in my apartment, should I (a) pull out my gun and then call 911, or (b) just call 911 and wait for the famed, heroic, super-competent, highly responsive, massively professional, even legendary DC Police to come save me? The 911 service that puts people on hold, the police that let wounded citizens die in the streets. Hmmm...

Bang!

Bye-bye, criminal.

Definitely Obama's response to this difficult and devisive issue is by far the most presidential, measured, thoughtful, balanced, cautious. McCain's response is pure Bush, devisive, hot-tempered, thoughtless and callous. Say NO to McBush and YES to Obama!

Anyone who calls this victory pyrrhic doesn't know the meaning of the term. One of the longest-standing and most infringing gun laws in the country has been struck down, and the individual right to own a gun for self-protection -- something the District of Columbia claimed was not a constitutional right -- has been vindicated. The fact that you'll have to pass a background check and that you cannot own an machine gun doesn't make that a pyrrhic victory.

Gun rights might not shape this election, but the fact that only a small number of people currently rank this issue as important doesn't mean it cannot be *made* salient. It's all a matter of framing.

In Chicago, Obama opposed letting people who had to use a gun in self-defense in their own home from using that rationale to avoid prosecution under local gun control laws. Yep, that's right. Your house gets broken into, you use your gun to protect your life, and the DA can still prosecute you for illegally owning a gun. Great. Guess what: I'm more worried about the criminals than obeying your stupid law. Heck, until a few brief years ago, that's the decision lots of DC residents were forced to make about carrying pepper spray for self-defense. Yes, in DC, it was basically illegal to carry any implement that might help protect your life.

Nothing pyrrhic about this win.

The minds of Americans are decided, but because of the massive propaganda effort by the NRA and the gun nuts. Roberts has fatal epilectic attack, Thomas has a heart attack, Scalia passes for whatever reason, and the Obama appointee will overturn this crock ASAP.

No wonder Al Qaeda has its people buying guns in the USA. They must live this decision.

a quick check at gun-nut sites (they were all over www.straightrecord.com for its scalia posting) shows this ruling will raise the consciousness of the gun-toters about court membership. the call is already out to try to defeat obama in november, not because of any position he may or may not have on the gun-control issue, but because the court as currently composed, the one that handed down the 5-4 ruling, will come up for change under the next president and the gun-nuts fear their slim majority will be lost. watch for obama to twist himself into a pretzel to appear to be pro-gun, but it's not likely to do him any good.

The larger point here is the protection of our rights. A Supreme Court that can ignore clearly stated rights or fabricate rights that are not stated can just as easily eliminate or negate any other right. The method of modifying the constitution is clearly defined.There is a grave danger in making the constitution a political document. If the Constitution does not mean what it says soon it will mean nothing.

Barack Obama's laughable claim that he's for the rights of the legal law abiding US citizens to have guns, is all BS when you look at his record.
This is from NRA's American Rifleman's Official Journal, Special Report June, 2008 "A true threat to Freedom" (p.12) re. Barack Obamas ACTUAL HISTORY on gun-rights.
"Over the years, Barack Obama has either voiced support for, or voted to enact laws to: Ban all handguns.
* Ban the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic firearms
* Ban the right to carry in every state nationwide
* Ban firearms in the home, even for self-protection.
* He voted against a 'self-defense exeption'which absolves folks of violating those bans when their reason for violating those bans is to fend off criminal attack in the home.
* In 1996 during his Illinois campaign he answered a questionaire indicating his support for a blanket ban on the manufacture, sale and possesion of handguns in Illinois.
* In 2000 Obama sponsored a one-gun-a-month law to ration the sale of guns to all LAW-ABIDING citizens.
* Obama has supported bans on ammunition, gun-lock mandates, re-newal of the 1994 Clinton gun ban and has supported California-style gun registration.
* Obama refused to sign the pro-gun "friend of the court" brief filed by 55 Senators and 250 House membersin the DC VS Heller gun ban case.
* Obama in July 2005 voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
* Obama proposed a federal law barring LICENCED firearm dealers from having a business within 5 miles of any school or park nationwide.
While Barack Obama's disdain for the 2nd Amendment has been obvious, his attitude for armed violent criminals has been just the opposite. In 1999 in the Illinois Senate he voted "present" (functional equivalent of "NO")on whether to try teenaged gang-bangers as adults when they fire guns. He voted against giving gang-bangers who commit murder the death penalty. In a Chicago Tribune questionaire Obama told them that the federal mandatory sentencing laws used to put repeat armed and violent predators behind bars should be abolished. He opposes and told the Chicago Tribune that he wants to ban the Right to Carry law exept for Police Officers. Obama also has supported Washington DC's total ban on all handguns in the home for self defence.
There's more but enough said. Barack Obama's now sudden conversion on the 2nd Amendment issue is like his sudden realization that his 20 year association and membership in that racist white and America--hating church Trinity, might not play well with voters that he needs to get elected. Obama's sudden change folks is a con. He's still a enemy of the 2nd Amendment; he's still a white-hating racist, and he's still a America--hater a la his friends Jerimiah Wright Jr. Michael Pfleger, Otis Moss 3d, Bill Ayres, and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. The leophard hasn't changed his spots, only his retoric to con the dummies.

Are we all safer because individuals can have handguns? Are those who own handguns really safer than the rest of us? Show me any mass shooting where an individual with his trusty gun saved the day.

"Just to play devils advocate, where do those illegal guns you refer to come from? They were formerly legal guns that have now gotten into the wrong hands. Some would make the argument if they were not there in the first place you would have fewer illegal guns on the street. I.E. a kid breaks into an apartment and going through a drawer looking for some change what ever and finds a gun. That gun is now on the street."
_________________________________________________

Actually, that isn't how most illegal guns get onto the street.

What usually happens is that someone drives from an area where they can't buy guns to where they can (from NY and DC to Virginia, usually). Then they to go to a corrupt dealer or get a local resident (a "straw man") to go instead, and pay cash for a large quantity of guns. Sometimes the dealer reports the guns as missing or stolen, or sometimes the dealer just puts down fictitious info about the buyer.

Then the guns are driven back to the inner cities and sold to gangs, criminals, etc.

An easy way to make a nice chunk o' change.

Who says what Americans won't like what decisions? He may not want to be pointing to the SC as many are not happy now. Why would he remind them?

------------------
while this Heller decision alone may not be a big election issue, the problem for obama is supreme court justices.

he points to breyer, ginsburg and souter as his preference, they have voted against his (now) stated positions in the dc gun ban and child rapist-death penalty case.

john mccain must point to a supreme court populated with more obama-approved justices will make decisions the american people would not like.

Posted by: Nitish Singh | June 26, 2008 4:19 PM

Actually, The Fix has it wrong (again). Polls show the vast majority of Americans do favor a whole host of tighter restrictions on gun ownership, including banning assault weapons, requiring that guns be registered, closing the "gun show loophole," requiring serious background checks that include checks on people's mental health, and other measures. If you think that Americans don't want gun regulation, you must be reading the NRA's propaganda, along with Obama, McCain and most of the other ineffectual leaders in Washington.

This is such a non issue to most of the country, even here in NYC where Mayor Bloomberg has made it one of his top issues. While guns are in the news on an almost daily basis it is no where near the economy, gas prices and the war.

while this Heller decision alone may not be a big election issue, the problem for obama is supreme court justices.

he points to breyer, ginsburg and souter as his preference, they have voted against his (now) stated positions in the dc gun ban and child rapist-death penalty case.

john mccain must point to a supreme court populated with more obama-approved justices will make decisions the american people would not like.

For what it's worth, the only reason McCain hasn't been embracing the anti-gun lobby is because there are no anti-gun lobbyists blowing in his ear. Trust me - if George Soros started the anti-NRA and offered McShame rides on Air Soros One, McShame couldn't pull guns out of people's hand fast enough.

Anyways, of course McShame sees nothing harmful about guns, since a far deadlier phenomenon is taking out his generation. It's called "old age."

Here's some news with a bit more import. Energy anaylsts, testifying before Congress, today stated that over half of the cost of gasline is due to energy speculation. If Congress simply ended the ability of the speculators to manipulate oil prices, the experts testified, the cost of gaslone would fall BELOW $2 a gallon within 30 days! http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gas-could-fall-2-if/story.aspx?guid={2673C102-68E0-41D9-9C9A-10EE2E723948}&dist=MostReadHome

And... remember, those same speculators, often the same people who ran up electricity costs in the Enron scam, have moved on to food, metals and other basic commodities. *MOST* of our current r3ecession can be traced to Wall Street! End the ability of these dirt bags to run roughshod over this country.

"Guns dont kill people, people using guns in a terrible and tragic way kill people. How many people have died from DUI related incidents? Should we ban alcohol or the car?"

We ban alcohol and car being together.

Perhaps we can ban people and guns being together as well.

I am so youthful and agile, I can twist my positions like a gummi pretzel every day.

Look for an all new me - tomorrow and again the next day. the old me was in gradual decline.

If Obama wants to actually win some previously red states, he'd be wise to draw some serious lines in the sand as to what he would and would not support under his presidency.

Does anyone think if before the ruling if you asked Mccain what he thought about the gun laws in DC and the SC discussion coming up he would have had a clue what you were talking about? He is nothing but daily sound bites and topic de jour. Tomorrow it will be something else. He seems to run his campaign by picking up the news paper and checking the headline. Does John Mccain actually stand for anything?

This will force Obama to make another flip-flop and shift to the center. It helps McCain if voters see it as double-talk Hurts him of they ignore the shift and see him as a more moderate and bipartisan leader.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Just to play devils advocate, where do those illegal guns you refer to come from? They were formerly legal guns that have now gotten into the wrong hands. Some would make the argument if they were not there in the first place you would have fewer illegal guns on the street. I.E. a kid breaks into an apartment and going through a drawer looking for some change what ever and finds a gun. That gun is now on the street.

--------------
I hope Obama doesn't injure himself falling off that tighrope he's walking. It's pretty clear that he has the typical Democratic ani-gun perspective. Not only are his elitist comments of bitter Americans clinging to their guns completely out in left field, his ghetto violence statement is equally absurd. Gun violence in the "hood" is not perpetrated with legal weapons. It is perpetrated with illegally obtained weapons. Barack, you need to step off that cloud and come down to Earth where the real people live.

Posted by: Capt. Howard | June 26, 2008 3:36 PM

FWIW, most of the world thinks that America's love affair with guns is crazy. But people who love guns, love guns...

In terms of the politics, the immediate reaction is a short term thing. Heading into the election, this decision should calm gun owners, which may keep them from being as excited about this issue, and thus focused on other issues.

Polls showing gun owners preferences would be interesting, as would polls showing what other issues gun owners care about. The media often talks about them, but the image is often stereotyped. It would be useful to get a broader picture of guns in America at this point.

I recall that after 9/11, some of my friends who had never owned guns began to talk about buying them. Is this an ongoing trend? Is there a generation gap in gun ownership?

I suspect that this will NOT be a major issue in the presidential election (if the court had ruled the other way, it might be). Economics looks like more and more the driving factor.

Taxes don't break people, free spending liberal politicians do. I look forward to emptying your wallet soon.

Yes but so few really see it as a big issue it doesn't mean anything. Although I would say non gun owners out numbers gun owners as well as those who want complete freedom with their guns. I think in the long run it is a loser for Mccain. He should not even have commented. He is such a knee jerk reaction candidate you don't know what he thinks from one day to the next. With a poll he doesn't know what he stands for himself.

++++++
Americans view guns the way they do cars: everyone's entitled to one (or more) and any "collateral damage" that results is just the cost of doing business.

Posted by: eomcmars | June 26, 2008 2:55 PM

With people being killed on a daily bases by guns in this country Mccain better be careful where he really stands on this issue. He needs to make it clear if he want to make it a part of his campaign. He can't have it both ways. Is he for some guns, all guns, how about machine guns, or how about concealed weapon permits so everyone can just put a gun in their pocket like their wallet when they leave the house in the morning. I do it in Florida, "Don't leave home without it" so to speak. Mccain needs to tell us exactly where you stand, not in sound bites, but what he really think and not because of some poll.

I hope Obama doesn't injure himself falling off that tighrope he's walking. It's pretty clear that he has the typical Democratic ani-gun perspective. Not only are his elitist comments of bitter Americans clinging to their guns completely out in left field, his ghetto violence statement is equally absurd. Gun violence in the "hood" is not perpetrated with legal weapons. It is perpetrated with illegally obtained weapons. Barack, you need to step off that cloud and come down to Earth where the real people live.

Stick - I read that the SC tossed the trigger lock requirement. They reasoned that the D.C. law requiring that a firearm be disassembled AND trigger locked went so far as to render such a gun inoperable for purposes of self defense. I think they went too far. Something in the middle, like a requirement that firearms not under the immediate control of the owner be locked in a steel gun safe, might pass constitutional muster and seems reasonable to me. Then, someone could have a firearm to protect their home, but the rest of the time that firearm would be locked up, out of reach of thieves or inquisitive children.

I agree with Fairfax Voter.

The candidates' statements reflect their educational backgrounds. Obama was a law professor. He has clearly read the decision, which was suprisingly nuanced for a Scalia opinion. With all due respect to McCain, I doubt he read the full decision at the time he issued his statement--on Westlaw, it is over 70 pages, including the two dissents. It generally takes longer than half an hour to read and digest that much legal text. Plus the Supreme Court did not strike down all gun control laws--it explicitly went out of its way to emphasize the nature of the DC law, which was an outright ban. Sadly, the talking heads tend to overlook such details.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the only 1% of voters consider guns an important factor. Guns, like many other 'non-factors' are subtly more important than your poll numbers suggest. How the candidate is painted (and it is generally the distortion and not the truth that gets through to voters) on gun control directly feeds into how a voters feels about the candidate. So they will not respond to a pollster as saying, "I won't vote for him because he's against/for guns," but will say "He doesn't represent my values." And it is how the voter feels about a candidate that is important. A voter will vote for someone even if they have a major policy disagreement, as long as they feel the candidate represents them. If a voter feels they are incompatible with a candidate, then they can align perfectly on policies but still not get the vote.

That said, guns will not play a role in this election. McCain's dog and pony show today is preaching to the choir.

anyone who opposes me for any reason is a racist. It's that simple. now spread the word.

Chris, major victory for John McCain.

All of the recent rulings support John McCain's positions, including Lethal Weapon that the Supreme Court has authorized to use to protect America from the terrorists.

If McCain does not know how to use this legal issues, then he is really stupid.

More stuff about me I'd rather not discuss:

Obama Distances Self from Middle Initial?
ABC News, by Jake Tapper
It's one thing for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, to distance himself from his minister, his home lender, his pledge to try to work out an agreement to use public financing, or the importance of telecom immunity in the FISA bill. But his own middle initial? (Snip) ''In the primary, aides to Mrs. Clinton referred to their rival as B.H.O. - initials of Barack Hussein Obama, including his middle name, which has been a politically sensitive issue - while Mr. Obama's team simply referred to him as B.O. The B.H.O. shorthand is frowned upon inside Mr. Obama's campaign

I need to distacne myself from myself

Obama Eager to Distance Self from
Campaign's Former Position on
DC Handgun Ban
Craig Layne, a reporter from WJET-TV in Erie, Penn., today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, a question on the DC gun ban. Here's how the exchange went down. ''In November you mentioned that the DC handgun law was constitutional," Layne said. ''Now you're embracing the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision striking down that law-'' ''That's not what I said,'' Obama interrupted (Snip) ''Your aide said that,'' Layne clarified

A,

Guns dont kill people, people using guns in a terrible and tragic way kill people. How many people have died from DUI related incidents? Should we ban alcohol or the car?

A simple question for Justice Scalia who last week railed against the decision to allow Guantanamo detainees access to federal courts by say something "this decision will cause Americans to die". Well, how many Americans will die and have died from a gun? In 2005, the CDC did a study of 16 states to try and assess this average it found 7,813 or 49% of all violent deaths were the result of a firearm. That's one year in only 16 states. Compare it to all terrorism related deaths in this countr