Would this disuade Pres Obama from....

[gunafficionado]

Would this disuade Pres Obama from passing more gun control laws?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/11/07/homeowners-issue-warnings-to-looters-following-superstorm-sandy/

[Bobby Ricigliano]

Would this disuade Pres Obama from passing more gun control laws?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/11/...erstorm-sandy/

Not for a second.

[CDFingers]

There are false premises behind the OP.

The first is that there exists a motive for stricter gun laws in Congress. The second is that sufficient votes at the Fed level exist to pass those unmotivated gun laws. The third is that the state laws in both NY and NJ are stricter than national laws by and large, so suggesting "stricter" laws at the Fed level in this instance would change nothing.

CDFingers

[pontiacpratt]

I'm sure when defending you home from bands of looters a single shot break action pistol or shotgun would be more than enough. No need for those assault weapons anyway. ;-)

[RandyD]

Would this disuade Pres Obama from passing more gun control laws?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/11/...erstorm-sandy/

The liberal mindset looks at such a circumstance as a reason why they want a larger and more powerful government.

[huntercf]

Not for a second.

^^^This, just look at his history in Chicago.

[DannyInSoCal]

To answer - Ask yourself these questions:

What percentage of the looters voted for Obama...?

What percentage of the gun toting property/business owners voted for Obama...?

[ICONIC]

The crime rate/murder rate has been decreasing every year, why is anymore gun control needed?

[huntercf]

The crime rate/murder rate has been decreasing every year, why is anymore gun control needed?

According to the liberals, that is why.

[Bert Gamble]

There are false premises behind the OP.

The first is that there exists a motive for stricter gun laws in Congress. The second is that sufficient votes at the Fed level exist to pass those unmotivated gun laws. The third is that the state laws in both NY and NJ are stricter than national laws by and large, so suggesting "stricter" laws at the Fed level in this instance would change nothing.

CDFingers

There are false premises behind this post.

The first is that there is a requirement for Congress to pass stricter gun laws to further restrict our rights. The second is sufficient Supreme Court votes to curb gun rights will not soon exist. The third is that NY and NJ will not become the "new normal" after #2 comes to pass.

CDFingers is right about 1 thing. There will be no need to pass additional laws. They will simply be interpreted differently.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms will be re-interpreted to mean that the people have a right to bare their arms, no matter how much jiggly fat there is underneath. That is what the framers were really trying to say. They simply had a spelling error.

Thanks Obama lovers.