Here it comes

[Aguila Blanca]

"White House to Push Gun Control"

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html

Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his State of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.
Read the article, but have plenty of antacid and Maalox handy, it'll make you sick to your stomach. Same old tired, worn-out cliches about "loose" gun laws allowing mentally unstable people to buy "assault" weapons. And the "ongoing controversy" over the Second Amendment.

Excuse me? I thought the "controversy" had been settled by the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment guarantees "the People" a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. WHAT controversy? "Shall not be infringed" can be unclear only to people who ponder what the meaning of "is" is.

[Rich-D]

We should always be concerned when someone is attacking our rights, especially when it is the President. However, recent elections decimated anti-gun politicians in the House and several in the Senate. I think the President is playing to his base, knowing full well that the votes are no there!

What we may see is debate on mental health issues, and possible ATF directives on that issue. However, that is also a slippery slope, without a person being diagnosed by mental heath professionals. Which was the case in the Giffords shooting.

[Aguila Blanca]

You put your finger on it: The "slippery slope." Unfortunately, too many politicians are perfectly willing to ignore the Constitution (which they swore an oath to uphold) and start down that slippery slope of incrementally infringing the RKBA.

IMHO, we have too many gun laws now, and to my layperson's limited intellect, most of them are unconstitutional. I know that in the Heller decision Mr. Justice Scalia wrote that the RKBA has to be subject to "reasonable" regulation ... but the Constitution does NOT say that. There is no "reasonable" in "... shall not be infringed." The authors knew the word -- they used it in the 4th Amendment. If they had intended "reasonable" to apply to the 2nd, IMHO they would have said so.

[Rich-D]

IMHO, we have too many gun laws now, and to my layperson's limited intellect, most of them are unconstitutional. I know that in the Heller decision Mr. Justice Scalia wrote that the RKBA has to be subject to "reasonable" regulation ... but the Constitution does NOT say that. There is no "reasonable" in "... shall not be infringed." The authors knew the word -- they used it in the 4th Amendment. If they had intended "reasonable" to apply to the 2nd, IMHO they would have said so.

Well stated and 100% accurate!