New Card Ordered

[Cliff_Ksenia 0]

WOW; I thought these forums were dead. In two days I see only one comment and respond, then come back after a few more days and see an active discussion. I knew if anyone could do it, Slim could!

I think that despite all of the USA's current problems there is still pride in being a US citizen and no better place. (Once Texas succeeds from the Union I'm sure I'll have a different opinion, "it's a whole other country"). All kidding aside I think the biggest plus for obtaining citizenship is minimizing the likelihood of being separated from your family / kids should the unthinkable happen. I asked Ksenia this question and she thinks it is important to have the same citizenship as your family . There are also a lot of convinces that come with having the "blue passport", have you tried going on a down island cruise with the visa requirements to the smaller islands like St. Lucia etc, all want visa for Russian citizen. Currently wait times for Naturalization is much lower than recent history but this could possibly change dramatically with upcoming "Immigration Reform" for current illegals, IMO.

As for as the second amendment; (meh NRA member) I pray we can hold onto this, current administration is already putting ground work in to whittle away at this right . If you take the stand, "you can pry it out of my cold dead hand" this is exactly what I see as the administrations battle cry for more regulation. Hopefully the "Bitter white people clinging to God and guns" still rings in your ears, it does mine . If you think your right is all inclusive to all of the US and it's territories you should think again. US Virgin Islands for example has mandatory license requirements, what they don't tell you is your guns will be kept by the police dept pending your application review, sometimes this is indefinite. I gave my 9mm S&W / 12ga. Riot SG / .22 pistol to them 5 years ago and am still waiting. I have no criminal history. I'm glad I left all my rifles in Texas . Only the local criminals have guns here, hence all the mayhem and lawlessness. Buy ammo, if you can find it! OK OK, back on topic.

As I said in my first response we don't see any downside to it, only good. Our application will be in the mail 4/21/09, then after citizenship, no more immigration, WOOT!

[mox 298]

As for as the second amendment; (meh NRA member) I pray we can hold onto this, current administration is already putting ground work in to whittle away at this right . If you take the stand, "you can pry it out of my cold dead hand" this is exactly what I see as the administrations battle cry for more regulation.

I'm one of those whatchacall liberal hippies (although a strong fiscal conservative, with a loser-case "c") who also happens to be a gun owner and strong supporter of our 2nd amendment rights. I am not a member of the NRA, although I believe in many of their core (i.e. non-political) values. With that said, let me just say that all of the cries that the Obama administration is trying to erode gun rights is baloney. If you're worried about your rights at all, worry about the rights you are **still** losing to the PATRIOT Act. Worry about the insane deficit that the current administration is sticking your great grandchildren with. Worry about the economy and an out of control defense industry. But seriously, your 2nd Amendment rights are under no more of a threat than they were before January.

Nice post otherwise.

[GiGii 4]

A naturalized citizen is deportable. Just this week Ivan Demjanjuk (Ukrainian Nazi) was going to be deported. He only got a temp stay based on his health issues. I dont get how he's given a temp stay, claiming traveling while sick is torture, yet he's forgotten what he did in the camps. I'd personally take on the responsibility for deporting his a$$ at age 89 and let him figure out what to do in a foreign land. Recently in the news, there was some huge local drug bust, the guy had been a naturalized citizen and they are working on getting him deported too (dont know the super specifics of this case).

You can't deport a citizen, naturalized or otherwise. In the case of Demjanjuk, they had to revoke his citizenship first. That has been a legal case stretching for years. I'm not familiar with the other case you mentioned, but they'll have to strip him of his citizenship too if they want to deport him.

They did strip him of his citizenship and he is now deportable. If I remember correctly, he renounced his former citizenship, so the problem was where to ship him back, since he had no technical "home country" now. So naturalized citizens are deportable... they just get stripped of citizenship first, then get booted.

[mox 298]

They did strip him of his citizenship and he is now deportable. If I remember correctly, he renounced his former citizenship, so the problem was where to ship him back, since he had no technical "home country" now. So naturalized citizens are deportable... they just get stripped of citizenship first, then get booted.

Right. My point was that you can't deport a citizen. You have to remove citizenship first, and then you're not deporting a citizen. The point being that it's very, very difficult to strip someone of citizenship. It takes years, even decades. Whereas a non-citizen can be deported within hours.

[slim 1,514]

I'm not particularly interested in owning a gun.... but I'm not anti-2nd ammendment. I would actually fight to be able to keep one, even though I, myself, am not interested in having one.

That's what I'm talking about right there. It may not be your forte, but you're willing to acknowledge the Right exists and defend it. Awesome! That's very patriotic of you. Defending an existing Right, even if you don't agree with it all the way (or participate in it) makes you a great American!

Are these things hard to remedy? no, probably a good weekend could do it. I'm jsut not a person who puts faith in the gun to save me-- I know someone with good skills could easily turn the tables quickly. I figure best to not underestimate the skills of the threat and best to be cautious.

Here's a common misunderstanding that I hear a lot of and like you said, a weekend of training could remedy it for you. There seems to be this myth out there that someone holding a gun (even if they haven't been trained on it) is somehow in more danger than someone who isn't holding a gun. Well, look at it from the other side. Is a rapist going to "call your bluff?" And if he does, how does being unarmed make you any safer?

For some strange reason (note the sarcasm) people have been told that possessing a gun makes them less safe if they don't know how to use it properly. Well, just ask yourself..... if you're going to be victimized anyway, wouldn't you at least prefer to have a shot at leveling the playing field by having a gun? I find it odd that people think someone's going to take away their gun and use it on them because anyone who can "take away your gun and use it on you" is already capable of physically beating you. Why would you not want to have a gun in that situation? Is the threat of physical beating not as bad as the threat of physical beating followed by being shot with your own gun? I just have to ask..... how are you going to get beat up by someone who brought fists to a gun fight?

Glad to know the rules of the LPR vs firearms. I bet Ammar and my dad would love to go shooting together at the range. Ammar used to work M-16s and AK-47s, he had both at home until the government there changed the rules and confiscated all the guns...

There is a small section on firearms ownership in the "welcome to America" book. (Or one of those books they get.) I wish it was encouraged a little more for both immigrants and Americans. Sorry to hear about what happened in his home country. Dare I say a rule change and confiscation wouldn't go over so well here.

I'm just saying that as a USC, there is ZERO possibility of her being turned away. As a LPR, there's always a chance of being turned away. Whether that's because you somehow share a similar name to a Chechen terrorist or because the guy on duty has a stick up his аss. It's small, but I listed it because a USC simply doesn't have this problem at all.

As you said later, with the Patriot Act, there's always a chance!

The law is not on your side with this one, I'm afraid, no matter how well armed you are. Your marriage might get you sympathy points in front of a jury, but your wife is her own person. Your rights don't transfer to her.

She can't claim my Rights, but I can share whatever I want with her and use my Rights to defend hers. Due process goes a long way, and when it stops, my rifle adds about 500+ more yards onto that!

I think you misunderstand how the affidavit of support works. You agreed when you sponsored her to cover the costs of any Federal assistance she receives. This isn't alimony or support, this is the government billing you for services rendered.

Sure, but if we're divorced, I've got a pretty good leg to stand on saying that she didn't hold up her end of the bargain. I'm under the impression that if the offer to return, all expenses paid, back to the home country is offered up as part of the divorce, and denied, then it's not really on me to support her anymore. I don't see how once they say she can stay here, after I tell them to require her to go home, she's still my responsibility. You guys can argue this one all day because this is one of those "this one time, I heard about......" deals. None of us will ever know until we experience it first-hand. And anyway, I'm poor so it's not like they're going to get a lot from me. "Garnish my wages? GO AHEAD!"

[slim 1,514]

There is an upside to the USC for their LPR spouse to gain citizenship, it is the end of the affidavit of support. You guys are understimating its powers. Even though Julianna explained more about the other possibilities, there lie more. If your spouse ever collected any type of support; welfare, stamps, went to a hospital didnt pay (didnt have insurance, etc), racks up debt, buys a car & doesnt want to pay it off, they come after the USC. Sure its not immediate, and by the time they get to you with what you owe there's probably 50% interest already added in, but as the USC its your debt, cause you promised to support your spouse.

Sounds like another one of those "I heard this one time about......" This is no different than racking up a bunch of debt with an American spouse. If it gets to the point where you're paying back-taxes because your S/O earned too much while they were here then flew the coop, wouldn't you have known about it while they were here and you were enjoying the benefits of all that money? Or, if they were on welfare, wouldn't you also be? (And don't give me that, "well, what if you got divorced and then they went on welfare?" because if they did that, see above. I'd offer an all-expenses-paid trip back home. If refused, I'm off the hook. "Well, we can't make them go back home." Yeah, and you can't make me pay either!)

There is another upside to dual citizenship. Lets say the RU spouse travels home to Russia, of course on a Russian passport. In case some crazy conflict would happen between US & Russia, the US will not go protecting the spouse, or finding them to bring them home. That is only for US citizens, however while you are on Russian land under a Russian passport, the US has no authority over you. I understand this is a far fetch, but possible given the US & RU relations. The upside of traveling on a US passport is hoping someone's got your back. However, I can understand how hassling it is to get all the mumbo jumbo of permits, etc.

So let me get this straight..... my wife goes back to Russia and WWIII starts. As of right now she's only an LPR so she's SOL. But, if she has the magic Blue Passport, Chuck Norris will come pick her up and bring her back to me?

I don't know if any of you have actually sat down and rationalized the possibility of a conflict between the U.S. and Russia. Let's just say if it were to happen sometime in our lives, "getting back home" (to either country) would be the least of our worries.

For the record, I'm glad Chuck Norris is on our side though!

As for as the second amendment; (meh NRA member) I pray we can hold onto this, current administration is already putting ground work in to whittle away at this right . If you take the stand, "you can pry it out of my cold dead hand" this is exactly what I see as the administrations battle cry for more regulation.

Here's where I draw the line on my fellow 2A-ers. If you're sitting in your basement, surrounded by 20,000 rounds and a box of water purification tablets, doing nothing other than keeping a low-profile and "preparing" for when they come to take them, then YOU are the reason we're going to lose the battle. "Cold dead fingers" is a losing strategy. Sure, it should be the bottom line, but it shouldn't be the first form of defense.

Our forefathers fought and died to give us the Right. Not only do we have the Right, but it shall not be infringed. The only way it can be infringed is for us to let them infringe upon it. Sitting in the basement hoarding ammo is the way that infringement starts. Do you know how hard it is for politicians to ban something people are proud of? How hard is it for them to outlaw something that's popular? When we put up with it, when we allow it to happen, that's when it starts to go away. Apathy... as American as Apple Pie.

Stand and be counted. Take pride in your Rights! Cold dead fingers is awesome, but cold, wet, hungry and sitting in a trench full of water for months on end is no way to defend your Rights. Sitting in Starbucks typing on your laptop is the way to go! Given the choice, I'd much rather petition and vote than prepare and engage.

Hopefully the "Bitter white people clinging to God and guns" still rings in your ears, it does mine . If you think your right is all inclusive to all of the US and it's territories you should think again. US Virgin Islands for example has mandatory license requirements, what they don't tell you is your guns will be kept by the police dept pending your application review, sometimes this is indefinite. I gave my 9mm S&W / 12ga. Riot SG / .22 pistol to them 5 years ago and am still waiting. I have no criminal history. I'm glad I left all my rifles in Texas .

All it takes is a majority of the citizenry to petition their govt.

Only the local criminals have guns here, hence all the mayhem and lawlessness.

Sounds like successful gun control to me!

I'm one of those whatchacall liberal hippies (although a strong fiscal conservative, with a loser-case "c") who also happens to be a gun owner and strong supporter of our 2nd amendment rights. I am not a member of the NRA, although I believe in many of their core (i.e. non-political) values. With that said, let me just say that all of the cries that the Obama administration is trying to erode gun rights is baloney. If you're worried about your rights at all, worry about the rights you are **still** losing to the PATRIOT Act. Worry about the insane deficit that the current administration is sticking your great grandchildren with. Worry about the economy and an out of control defense industry. But seriously, your 2nd Amendment rights are under no more of a threat than they were before January.

I'll agree to disagree. I believe they're under more of a threat now because we saw what happens when "the people" speak. "The people" wanted "change" and "hope" and what they got was "Ah, I hope it doesn't change all that much." I sincerely hope they're smart enough not to change too much.

I'm 100% with you on the PATRIOT Act. Until that goes away, in it's entirety, we're all (both USC and LPR) at risk of losing ALL of our Rights indefinitely. And worse, "the people" are still under the impression that it's a good thing. Maybe that'll be the one thing that Obama can change. I can only "hope."

[mox 298]

There is another upside to dual citizenship. Lets say the RU spouse travels home to Russia, of course on a Russian passport. In case some crazy conflict would happen between US & Russia, the US will not go protecting the spouse, or finding them to bring them home. That is only for US citizens, however while you are on Russian land under a Russian passport, the US has no authority over you. I understand this is a far fetch, but possible given the US & RU relations. The upside of traveling on a US passport is hoping someone's got your back. However, I can understand how hassling it is to get all the mumbo jumbo of permits, etc.

So let me get this straight..... my wife goes back to Russia and WWIII starts. As of right now she's only an LPR so she's SOL. But, if she has the magic Blue Passport, Chuck Norris will come pick her up and bring her back to me?

Just a small point of order, you're quoting Gigii, not me. I don't really cotton to this argument either. If we're at full-blown DEFCON ####### war with Russia, aint nobody getting through, not USC's, not Russians, not nobody. Having said that, war with Russia is so far outside the realm of possibilities that it's not even worth considering. What made the cold war so scary was that it was a game of ideals being played by 70+ year-old men willing to die for their country. These days it's all about money, and a war between the US and Russia would be bad for business.

I'll agree to disagree. I believe they're under more of a threat now because we saw what happens when "the people" speak. "The people" wanted "change" and "hope" and what they got was "Ah, I hope it doesn't change all that much." I sincerely hope they're smart enough not to change too much.

Not sure I follow. What I'm talking about is actual legislation. Nothing about the Obama administration suggests they are working on comprehensive gun control. They've got bigger fish to fry at the moment. I may not agree with everything Obama's doing right now, but let's give the man credit where it's due. He's not going after anyone's guns.

I'm 100% with you on the PATRIOT Act. Until that goes away, in it's entirety, we're all (both USC and LPR) at risk of losing ALL of our Rights indefinitely. And worse, "the people" are still under the impression that it's a good thing. Maybe that'll be the one thing that Obama can change. I can only "hope."

Congress has the votes to repeal it. I can't believe this wasn't job one under the new congress.

[slim 1,514]

Not sure I follow. What I'm talking about is actual legislation. Nothing about the Obama administration suggests they are working on comprehensive gun control. They've got bigger fish to fry at the moment. I may not agree with everything Obama's doing right now, but let's give the man credit where it's due. He's not going after anyone's guns.

Sorry for misquoting in the last post.

Check out HR45. (You've heard of it. Blair Holt.) It didn't get any backing, but it was one of the first things proposed under the new Congress. Obama and Holder were going to back it until everyone realized it was political suicide. Holder is still holding onto the notion that now they can spin it into "stopping the Mexican drug violence" but it's kind of hard to do whenever they show pictures of big drug/gun busts and there are grenades and rocket launchers, etc.

I think we should just make drugs illegal. Oh, and while we're at it, let's make murder illegal too. In both the U.S. and Mexico. Wouldn't a law against that stop the problem?

They should have enough backing to stop the Patriot Act as well. Clinton was just on the radio yesterday talking about ####### Cheney's "credibility." Now that's funny! They're bringing the waterboarding and Gitmo stuff out. Hopefully soon someone will make the connection that we could do that to anyone and they'll repeal it to restore Americans' 4th Amendment Rights once again.

[Nasturtium 500]

Here's a common misunderstanding that I hear a lot of and like you said, a weekend of training could remedy it for you. There seems to be this myth out there that someone holding a gun (even if they haven't been trained on it) is somehow in more danger than someone who isn't holding a gun. Well, look at it from the other side. Is a rapist going to "call your bluff?" And if he does, how does being unarmed make you any safer?

For some strange reason (note the sarcasm) people have been told that possessing a gun makes them less safe if they don't know how to use it properly. Well, just ask yourself..... if you're going to be victimized anyway, wouldn't you at least prefer to have a shot at leveling the playing field by having a gun? I find it odd that people think someone's going to take away their gun and use it on them because anyone who can "take away your gun and use it on you" is already capable of physically beating you. Why would you not want to have a gun in that situation? Is the threat of physical beating not as bad as the threat of physical beating followed by being shot with your own gun? I just have to ask..... how are you going to get beat up by someone who brought fists to a gun fight?

Slim, Wouldn't matter-- i don't know how to take the safety off a gun. So, unless threat alone worked, I'd be screwed. I learned a lot from my dad who worked with criminals every day. Lots of it I have forgotten at this point. i just need a refresher is all. Like I said though, if i did have the safety off (or a gun without), then I'd never let a person get close enough to be within reaching distance. Does that ever frustrate anyone else that movies do that all the time? Just shoot the dude and he's not going to take your gun and kill you (or at least be less likely).

Now what i would really like to learn is a bunch of cool martial arts.

PS-- I thought about all of you the other day when i saw a girl in uggs and a mini-skirt. I knew you all wished you were there to see her.

[slim 1,514]

Slim, Wouldn't matter-- i don't know how to take the safety off a gun. So, unless threat alone worked, I'd be screwed. I learned a lot from my dad who worked with criminals every day. Lots of it I have forgotten at this point. i just need a refresher is all. Like I said though, if i did have the safety off (or a gun without), then I'd never let a person get close enough to be within reaching distance.

I'd be willing to bet my paycheck that if push comes to shove, you'd remember real quick. Guns aren't exactly difficult machines to operate and it's like riding a bike. If you knew how to do it as a kid, you can still do it now. Maybe not consciously, but you'd have a pretty quick recall in a stressful situation. Our bodies and minds are funny in that we can't unconsciously recall our highest level of education, but moreover we revert back to our lowest level of training and practice. You can do it, trust me!

Does that ever frustrate anyone else that movies do that all the time? Just shoot the dude and he's not going to take your gun and kill you (or at least be less likely).

What really frustrates me is that "common sense" gun laws are based on what people see in movies, not reality. In the movies, anyone can just walk down the street and nail their targets from hundreds of yards away... with a pistol! And don't forget, every gun holds like, 400 rounds. When politicians see that stuff on TV they think because I have the same gun I'm just as dangerous. HA!

That stuff with the kung-fu guy taking the pistol away from someone (or Jet Li taking it apart!) is complete fantasy. Another thing that really ticks me off is the hero's phone/radio always works, even in the subway tunnel or out in the middle of nowhere during a thunderstorm. Or how they can walk through the bus terminal, train station, down the sidewalk, through the mall, etc., etc., etc., and not even a rent a cop stops them. And if he does, even the detective ends up passed out in less than 1/2 a second from some arm bar/throw/karate chop combination that always sounds like "whoosh, thwack, whoosh, thud" and then our hero keeps walking to go clear his identity.

Now what i would really like to learn is a bunch of cool martial arts.

There are only two forms of martial arts one should know. The first is called "verbal judo" and you more or less use your words and conversational skills to defuse and deescalate any situation you may find yourself in - talk yourself out of it. If that doesn't work, there's always (what Big Pun calls) Puerto Rican Judo. "JUDOn't know if I got a gun!"

PS-- I thought about all of you the other day when i saw a girl in uggs and a mini-skirt. I knew you all wished you were there to see her.

I live right by the college campus so it's a daily sight for me. Now it's a little warmer so they're busting out the booty shorts and PINK attire.... still with the UGGS. Always the UGGS. My personal favorite is pajamas with UGGS. Nothing says, "I'm a lazy #######" quite like rolling over and slipping on some soft boots before heading off to get a cheeseburger for breakfast at 1:00PM. "College life is so hard, daddy."

[mox 298]

Check out HR45. (You've heard of it. Blair Holt.) It didn't get any backing, but it was one of the first things proposed under the new Congress. Obama and Holder were going to back it until everyone realized it was political suicide. Holder is still holding onto the notion that now they can spin it into "stopping the Mexican drug violence" but it's kind of hard to do whenever they show pictures of big drug/gun busts and there are grenades and rocket launchers, etc.

You should read this article regarding HR45:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_c..._a_federal.html

(factcheck.org btw is a fantastic resource for getting at the truth of a matter. The site is completely non-partisan and slams Democrats and Republicans alike for getting the "facts" wrong.)

There's nothing to suggest Obama backed the bill, and nothing to suggest that the Obama administration is trying to enact gun control. In fact, Obama said during his campaign that he is not going to try to take away our guns. I'm inclined to take him at his word until he does otherwise. I'm not waving the Obama flag, I just think it's important that we don't foment unnecessary fear.

[slim 1,514]

I'm too lazy to look it up but Holder said (paraphrasing the quote here) "there are several things we'd like to do and among them are to require background checks of all firearm sales and reinstitute the assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton administration."

Now, when he said "we'd" did he mean his boys over at Justice or himself along with his best buddy?

Truth be told, gun control is probably one of the last things on the agenda now that gun sales have spiked over the last couple months. That and the whole Heller case.

[mox 298]

I'm too lazy to look it up but Holder said (paraphrasing the quote here) "there are several things we'd like to do and among them are to require background checks of all firearm sales and reinstitute the assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton administration."

Now, when he said "we'd" did he mean his boys over at Justice or himself along with his best buddy?

Objection your honor, speculation. Maybe "we" is the mouse in his pocket.

I think it's pretty ironic that the Bush administration did more to lay the infrastructure for Federal control of your 2nd amendment rights than any other administration in modern history, and the majority of NRA members can do nothing but fall all over themselves about how he's made us safer. Obama comes in, saying very clearly that he has no intention of taking our guns, and people can't waste their money fast enough on more guns and ammunition than they will ever need. It's just so cocked up that I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

Truth be told, gun control is probably one of the last things on the agenda now that gun sales have spiked over the last couple months. That and the whole Heller case.

As far as I can tell, gun control was the last thing on the agenda even before his first day in office.

[slim 1,514]

Sure Bush set us up to lose our Right, but the thing about that is most who were "extraordinarily rendered" weren't plucked off the streets of countries with strong 2nd Amendment Rights. Even in the 'Stans, there's pretty effective gun control in place already for your average Jihadi Joe. Most who were treated to the all-expenses-paid trip to Cuba "departed" from countries with relatively successful gun control laws. Those in America were at least granted due process.

I'm not going along with the NRA's support of Bush, I personally believe Bush's foreign policy could've been written by an ignorant 3rd grader, but I will say no matter what laws are passed, I feel better knowing I have a legal Right, guaranteed by my Constitution to keep and bear arms no matter what. When the black helicopters come to pick me up (or the new high-speed rail!) there's going to be nothing extraordinary about it.

I'm with you though on the "big deal" that gun control has become. The "assault weapons ban" and Brady bill did absolutely nothing to curb violent crime and I even purchased my "target rifle" during the ban. (Fires a 62gr. projectile at over 3200fps. with an effective range of over 800 yards, takes 30 round mags, fires as fast as I can pull the trigger.... but wait, they got me! No bayonet lug.... so it must be safe and it's 100% legal to own, even in compliance with 922r! Bunch of numskulls.) Anyway, people (read: NRA) want to get all upset over so-called "gun bans" but as you said, Bush did way more to attack personal freedoms than Clinton did or Obama could ever even think about getting away with.

I don't think folks realize they have absolutley NO LEGAL RIGHT of protection under the U.S. Constitution anymore, citizen or not. Sure, they have to be labeled an "enemy combatant" or "terror suspect" or something along those lines first, but how hard is it, historically, for our government (or any government for that matter) to label a person or group of people as anything they feel like labeling them at the time? Come on folks, wake up!!!! "But Slim, that'll never happen to me, I'm not an Arab."

HELLLO......McFLY!!!! I don't know how many times I've typed this here on VJ. Mox has seen it (and supported it, I know he gets it) but the vast majority of other folks here on this site (and way too many others, including NRA folks who should know better.) just keep sticking to the theory of as long as it's not happening to them and it's only happening to "those people" then it's OK. Folks, it's NEVER OK to give up your Rights. EVER!

Call 'em out on it. The Patriot Act has to go away. With all this hope and change we've been hearing about, maybe this'll be one good thing Obama can get done. 3.7 million NICS checks since the first of the year and over 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammo sold commercially in December alone. (Just heard all that on the radio tonight.... now that gives me hope!) It's legal right now, but there's way too much...."Well, if you consider this and you consider that....." NO. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." That's pretty straight-forward, right? Hold them to it.

[mox 298]

Call 'em out on it. The Patriot Act has to go away. With all this hope and change we've been hearing about, maybe this'll be one good thing Obama can get done. 3.7 million NICS checks since the first of the year and over 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammo sold commercially in December alone. (Just heard all that on the radio tonight.... now that gives me hope!) It's legal right now, but there's way too much...."Well, if you consider this and you consider that....." NO. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." That's pretty straight-forward, right? Hold them to it.

Amen brother Slim. Amen!

And your post makes me think...the best thing Obama could do is to address the increase of arms and ammunition sales after his win by saying "I'm glad to see Americans exercising their 2nd amendment rights, it's a sign that our Democracy works."