There are those that submit to just laws and are not the problem and those that don’t. Regarding threats, the primary accountability of every man and woman is to defend their household and themselves when outside of the home. Limiting or removing a law abiding citizens ability to do this is immoral. I operate in the world of reality. I appreciate knowing that the police will be arriving to assist while I take immediate action to stop the threat IF I CANNOT SAFELY RETREAT. The last thing I want to do is shoot someone and have never sought to add a notch to the butt of my gun. Guns are a tool. I love the hell out of my high quality chop saw, router, chain saw…..and guns. I look forward to using them! Shooting sports and IDPA or building a new deck chair.

“He teaches my hands to make war, so that a bow of bronze is bent by my arms.”

“Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:”

It is not evil to train and be ready to confront evil nor is a gun evil because it has the potential to be employed to do evil.

I learned this lesson the hard way when my wife was assaulted while I was deployed. Like a good little citizen, I complied with the laws of California that stripped me of my ability to sufficiently defend myself and family against an armed threat. Stupid me.

Years later, my brother, who does not believe in gun ownership, received a call from the San Bernardino police that his wife was carjacked and beaten so severely, she ultimately succumbed to the devastating injuries.

I can neither confirm nor deny that I am still a good little defenseless law abiding citizen.

Chris, you speak of our obligation to follow the law. I used to believe as you, but no longer have that luxury.

Political parties create an excuse to be intellectually lazy and wear blinders. I too call’em like I see’em as I can do my own critical thinking and don’t need a party or media commentator to do it for me.

I hate UN peacekeeping missions. These idiots go into a village or town and disarm all the citizens while the well-armed enemy waits in the hills for them to leave then swoops in and wipes them out to the last person, leaving only the farm animals that have value as food.

Guns are not evil. It is the evil idiot behind the gun and the evil idiot that leaves the innocent defenseless that are the problem.

In rural towns outside Kosovo, the enemy would lay siege to the town allowing nothing in or out, waiting for starvation to set in and the inevitable evil of neighbors killing neighbors to take their food to survive. The last ones standing would then be mopped up by the criminal army without having to expend much energy or firepower.

Obama is dangerous. Our society is quickly being polarized against each other. A simple economic collapse could bring evil terror to this nation. I suspect it won’t happen, but if it did, needing a firearm to defend and not having it is a sure recipe for horrific disaster.

If this president had his way, citizens would only have highly regulated muzzle-loaders and blunt knives. His actions and devious words support this in my opinion. His statements of having no desire to disarm hunters and sportsman hint that he may believe the 2nd amendment protects hunters and not it’s original intent that has nothing to do with hunting, although he may wish it so.

Every situation is different, but it should be kept in mind that sometimes a robber will shoot you because they don’t want witnesses, and sometimes they’ll shoot you for kicks and giggles. It’s a bit dangerous to assume that a robber only wants your car or your money.

While it’s true that company policy often precludes the carrying of a gun, there are situations where having a gun *could* save your life. It should be kept in mind, though, that not all of those times where you use a gun, you are *going* to save your life: after all, once someone starts a robbery, your life is in danger, period. Having a gun merely gives you a fighting chance in the event of a robbery, in cases where the perpetrators want more than just your money.

I wouldn’t say we should fight fire with fire–in this case, it’s a bad idea to put out bad data–but Obama’s statement is rather ambiguous, and feel-good-ish, at best.

I haven’t tried to analyze Obama’s statement in light of his follow-up tweet that contained statistics to emphasize his point (how do you even do statistics in a tweet, when the issues are so complex?) but it’s difficult to see where Obama is getting his numbers, so it’s hard to see how they justify his statements…