<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama on guns</title>
	<atom:link href="http://polizeros.com/2008/05/13/obama-on-guns/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://polizeros.com/2008/05/13/obama-on-guns/</link>
	<description>Musings on politics: anti-war, global warming, peak oil and otherwise</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ten Bears</title>
		<link>http://polizeros.com/2008/05/13/obama-on-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-152550</link>
		<dc:creator>Ten Bears</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 02:12:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polizeros.com/?p=11638#comment-152550</guid>
		<description>The Founding Fathers did not put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution to guarantee Americans the right to hunt for food, but the right to hunt Elected Officials who would try to take our rights away. 

The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure we retain the ability to, if necessary, once again rise up against tyranny.

On the other hand... as my name implies, I hunt, or more accurately, have hunted. I can feed my family. That's not the issue these days, nor the Fascists how have taken over our country and imposed a tyranny... the issue is those who don't hunt, who can't feed their family, but will, one way or another. I was never proud of 'Nam, but I got no problem...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Founding Fathers did not put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution to guarantee Americans the right to hunt for food, but the right to hunt Elected Officials who would try to take our rights away. </p>
<p>The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure we retain the ability to, if necessary, once again rise up against tyranny.</p>
<p>On the other hand&#8230; as my name implies, I hunt, or more accurately, have hunted. I can feed my family. That&#8217;s not the issue these days, nor the Fascists how have taken over our country and imposed a tyranny&#8230; the issue is those who don&#8217;t hunt, who can&#8217;t feed their family, but will, one way or another. I was never proud of &#8216;Nam, but I got no problem&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DJ</title>
		<link>http://polizeros.com/2008/05/13/obama-on-guns/comment-page-1/#comment-152545</link>
		<dc:creator>DJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 22:35:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polizeros.com/?p=11638#comment-152545</guid>
		<description>I'm a gun owner, but I also recognize that almost all of us believe that the 2nd Amendment is not without limits.  For example, do you believe that I should have the right to have my own nuclear bomb?  Few people would say yes.

On the other hand, I don't believe in a disarmed society-- for exactly the reasons you mention in your post.  Besides, in times of civil unrest, guns can and do prevent physical harm and property damage.  (You recall those who sat on top of their homes and/or shops during the LA riots keeping guard?)  As our government becomes more fragile and less able to enforce its laws and protect its citizens, it would be inhumane to prevent people from protecting themselves.

I think Obama's position is sensible-- and a fine example of how compromise (not knee-jerk opposition) can solve the problems we face.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a gun owner, but I also recognize that almost all of us believe that the 2nd Amendment is not without limits.  For example, do you believe that I should have the right to have my own nuclear bomb?  Few people would say yes.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I don&#8217;t believe in a disarmed society&#8211; for exactly the reasons you mention in your post.  Besides, in times of civil unrest, guns can and do prevent physical harm and property damage.  (You recall those who sat on top of their homes and/or shops during the LA riots keeping guard?)  As our government becomes more fragile and less able to enforce its laws and protect its citizens, it would be inhumane to prevent people from protecting themselves.</p>
<p>I think Obama&#8217;s position is sensible&#8211; and a fine example of how compromise (not knee-jerk opposition) can solve the problems we face.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
