Sir, the evidence of Obama's anti-gun stance is very much real. Denying that, removes any hope that you will be able to have a logical and credible discussion on the issue from your side. Moreover, we have MORE than enough so called "sensible" legislation in regards to firearms, and the reality is that they don't work. Period. They only serve to infringe upon legal firearms owners. The push is an incremental approach towards criminalizing as many American's who do not agree with government growth as possible.

"Sensible gun legislation" is nothing more than a talking point. We have more gun laws that we could possibly need. The failing is that our criminal justice system does not punish criminals as it should.

 

I guess you've never heard of a little incident called hurricane Katrina and the local government's response to law abiding citizens being armed? NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina |
In the aftermath of the storm, New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III announced that all privately owned firearms would be seized. "No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken," Compass declared. "Only law enforcement [will be] allowed to have weapons."

 

I think sensible legislation is important in all areas, yes
To answer your question in earnest, yes I do, but in order for the legislation to be sensible, it needs to take into account the state of affairs in the society it's applied to. I live in Denmark, and we have fairly restrictive gun laws. Pistols or revolvers can't be of a caliber larger than 9mm/ .38 and a member of a shooting club is required in order to obtain a license for a handgun. Long-guns are typically licensed as hunting firearms, although I gather that some also use both rifles and shotguns for competetion shooting. What all weapons have in common is that you have to hold a permit, issued by the police, in order to own and/or store them in your home, and this permit will be issued either for sporting og hunting purposes. Owning, and possibly carrying, a weapon purely for self defence is only allowed if a clear and ongoing threat against you or your family exists, and these cases are very few and far between. At least that's my understanding.
And I'm fine with that. Traditionally, we don't have a lot of violent crime, and outside of the rare armed robbery, gun-crime is pretty much non-existant (Although, in the last year or so, an on-again, off-again war between the Hell's Angels and various other gangs have meant that alot more shootings have taken place). At any rate, since we don't have a lot of violent crime of the kind that you can see in England or America, people don't feel the need to arm up.
In America, the availability of firearms to criminal appears to be alot bigger, and thus, people's risk of having to defend themselves against an armed attacker is also increased. My (long-winded) point is that the gun legislation, in so far as it relates to self defence, should take into account the "threat level" faced by the citizens under that law.
I won't ever fully "get" the whole 2nd Amendment issue, and what it means to you, because I come from a vastly different cultural and legislative background, and that's why I try to steer clear of any "freedom"-issues. That's for you guys to debate.
Hope I made myself clear, as far as that's possible....

ETA: Oh, and congratulations with the wife! Hope all goes well.

 

"Informed opinion"? Hmmm... You do realize that it makes no sense for a Mexican national to buy a gun here and take it back to Mexico? A country that is as corrupt as any in history, and black market, automatic weapons are as easy to come by as a bottle of tequila. Your point isn't even valid as a talking point. It is a red herring thrown up by the supposedly gun friendly left.

As for gun violence in this country... It isn't "gun" violence. It is violent crime. Our problem here is that we do not punish criminals. Guns have saved more people, or prevented more crimes than having been used in committing a crime. Canada simply isn't a good example.

You'll find that people here on TS are extremely informed. Especially on this issue.

 

Waaaaaaaait one second. Are you really saying the people here who read and know what Obama is wanting to do (from his own website) are not "well educated" as you say? So you're saying only the "well educated" know what's going on?

 

I'd like to try and see them pull that sh!t here in Texas.

 

Gun Confiscation After Katrina |
In the aftermath of the storm, New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III announced that all privately owned firearms would be seized. "No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken," Compass declared. "Only law enforcement [will be] allowed to have weapons"


This I didn't know.

 

For this I'll apologize. I've been spending a LOT of time online fighting antisemitism, and you wouldn't believe some of the shit I see. So much incredible ignorance and blind, burning hatred.

Have to remember to shift gears before I come to this site.

As far as the rest of the argument goes, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

 

Thanks for the well wishes. This will be our second and hopefully last child. Test went fine so far, everything is where it should be.

 

Ahh, yes. You come on here, stir up a hornet's nest with tired liberal talking points, insult the vast majority of the members, then when made to look like a fool, "just agree to disagree." What a brilliant "proud East Coast liberal" you are.