Rep John Barrow (D-GA) is currently up for re-election, and he touts his pro-gun credentials in a campaign ad by holding a rifle and saying of it, "ain't nobody going to take [it] away."

And on his house.gov website there are myriad references to the Second Amendment and Barrow's hunting and shooting heritage.

Problem -- in January 1993, as member of the Athens-Clarke County Commission, Barrow cast a vote banning the discharge of weapons within 900 feet of a house: a move which pretty much struck backyard target shoots by fathers and sons from the books. 

An article in the Athens Banner Herald dated Oct 28, 1992, showed how hunters and shooters literally poured into the county commission meetings in the run-up to the vote on the ban. All out of fear that Barrow and the rest of the commissioners were literally going to pass an ordinance against hunting and discharging firearms, period. And it seems they had justifiable reasons for thinking this way, as Barrow was personally suggesting a 200 to 300 yard "zone of safety" around any property, residential or not. (Athens Daily News, Mon. Nov. 30, 1992)

To justify these infringements on the exercise of gun rights, Barrow said: "More laws are needed to control the people who abide by the law, in order to isolate those who do not."(Athens Daily News, Oct. 1992)

Now think back to the campaign commercial I mentioned at the start of this post. The one that has Barrow holding his rifle and saying, "ain't nobody going to take [it] away."

If Barrow passes laws that ban pulling the trigger on a gun, how does that differ from taking it away?