A liberal speaks out in defense of the 2nd Amendment (yes, you read that right; try not to faint):
We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment. But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions. Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.Notice Chicago and Washington D.C. are pointed out as examples of total gun control. Guess which cities are especially notorious for violent crimes--even crimes involving guns. You may have heard a lot about D.C. but hasn't Chicago come a long way since Prohibition? Our President says,
[F]rankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.”And those handguns have been banned all along. But they are still being used to kill. Why won't criminals respect the gun laws? Unfortunately, the more law-abiding citizens of Chicago are not well-defended.
Of course, Obama's pledge that "new gun legislation will not be on the political agenda this [election] year" expires on December 31. ("Vote for me--I won't try to take away your 2nd Amendment rights for at least a few months.")